Preface
Archbishop Luka (in the world Valentin Feliksovich Voino-Yasenetsky) lived and worked during a difficult period for our country - at the end of the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century, during the years of spiritual crisis, people’s retreat from the faith, wars, revolutions, political repressions, persecution of Church. This is our contemporary - an outstanding doctor and scientist, a brilliant surgeon who saved thousands of lives, a shepherd and preacher, a theologian, an ascetic who restored the churches of God at an unthinkable time, a confessor glorified by the Church, who has shone in the Russian land, performing miracles to this day through the prayers of those who flow with faith. to him. The narrow path of suffering for the truth and serving people, always against the “convenient” current, always faithful to God and love for man - the bright and amazing life of a Christian in times of apostasy, fear and betrayal. Saint Luke lived for eleven years in prisons, camps, and exile. With his spiritual feat and selfless work as a surgeon and “peasant” doctor, he gained nationwide love.
In the 1920s, at the height of the persecution of the Church and its ministers, he became a priest, took monastic vows with the name Luke in honor of the apostle and evangelist, and then was secretly ordained Bishop of Tashkent and Turkestan. Next were the Krasnoyarsk and Tambov departments. In 1946, Archbishop Luka was transferred to Simferopol - his last place of service.
Wherever he was, he served without fear or doubt, preached and treated people, defended the Orthodox faith and the Church in deed, word and writing.
Saint Luke died on June 11, 1961, Sunday, the day of All Saints who shone in the Russian land. Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia for church-wide veneration in 2000.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', making a pastoral visit to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, venerated the relics of St. Luke resting in the cathedral church of the Holy Trinity Convent in Simferopol. In his word to the flock, His Holiness said:
“...With trepidation I touched the relics of St. Luke, practically our contemporary. I did not have the opportunity to meet him personally, but I had the opportunity to hear a lot about him from those who served with Vladika Luka, who knew him well. He truly was a marvelous archpastor, combining service to the Church and service to science, combining the ability to work in the secular system in the conditions of an atheistic state and at the same time be an archpastor of the Church.
The example of St. Luke teaches us how to find a way out of a seemingly hopeless life situation, how, without compromising with conscience, to be peaceful and calm and to rationally arrange our earthly existence.
Saint Luke was such a person: it would seem that external circumstances suppressed him, but he never broke under this pressure and retained his inner strength, because this strength was in the Orthodox faith. He felt the presence of the Lord in his life and therefore was not afraid of anything, was not afraid of anything, did not shy away from anything, but courageously, with love for people and in peace, he carried out his archpastoral service. Today Saint Luke is a great and bright example for many of us.” [16.]
The Lord Jesus Christ is always the same. We, who are bustling around in a modern “civilized” society, must understand and remember with all our souls and all our hearts that we are all given to each other by the Lord for salvation. It is very important right now, when the boundaries between good and evil, between truth and lies, are being erased, to turn again and again to the life of St. Luke in order to learn from him the courage to stand in the truth, to prayerfully ask for his help in all matters.
Let the life of St. Luke be for us an example of the Christian path in our time, an image of active faith, selflessness and selflessness, labor of love for the Church until the last breath.
This book contains evidence of the feat of Saint Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea - a man, a doctor, a shepherd, a saint.
Elena Kruglova
Biography of Saint Luke
Childhood and youth
On April 27, 1877, in the city of Kerch, Felix Stanislavovich Voino-Yasenetsky and his wife Maria Dmitrievna (nee Kudrina) had a third son, Valentin.
The Voino-Yasenetsky family has been known since the 16th century, and its representatives served at the court of the Polish and Lithuanian kings. But gradually the family became poorer, and Valentin Feliksovich’s grandfather already lived in the Mogilev province in a chicken hut, walked in bast shoes, but, however, had a mill.
“The three previous generations of hereditary nobles eked out a rather miserable existence until Felix Stanislavovich broke this centuries-old chain of ever-needy, almost impoverished nobility: he received a provisional education, escaped from the wilderness of the village and settled in the city of Kerch,” writes V. A. Lisichkin , great-nephew of the future Archbishop Luke. [9, p. 21.]
The pharmacy, which Felix Stanislavovich owned for two years, did not bring in much income. He switched to public service and remained an employee of the transport company until his death.
Felix Stanislavovich was a quiet, kind and calm person. He professed the Catholic faith, like his ancestors, but did not impose his views on his children. In his autobiography, Saint Luke remembers him with love: “My father was a Catholic, very devout, he always went to church and prayed for a long time at home. My father was a man of an amazingly pure soul, he saw nothing bad in anyone, he trusted everyone, although in his position he was surrounded by dishonest people. In our Orthodox family, he, as a Catholic, was somewhat alienated.” [1, p. 9.]
The strong-willed Maria Dmitrievna set the tone in family life. She was raised in Orthodox traditions, and her faith was active. “Maria Dmitrievna regularly donated homemade baked goods to those arrested in prison, and arranged opportunities for prisoners to earn money by sending them, for example, mattresses for reupholstery. When the First World War began, milk was constantly boiling in the house, which was sent to wounded soldiers. But Maria Dmitrievna’s living religious feeling was severely traumatized by one unpleasant incident. While celebrating a wake for her deceased daughter, she brought a dish of kutya to the temple and after the funeral service she accidentally witnessed the division of her offering. After that, she never crossed the threshold of the church again.” [10, p. 8.]
In total, the Voino-Yasenetsky family had five children: Pavel, Olga, Valentin, Vladimir and Victoria. Saint Luke recalled his loved ones: “My two brothers – lawyers – showed no signs of religiosity. However, they always went to the removal of the Shroud and kissed it, and they always attended Easter Matins. The older sister, a student, shocked by the horror of the disaster on Khodynskoye Field, became mentally ill and jumped out of a third-floor window, receiving severe fractures of the femur and humerus and ruptured kidneys; this subsequently formed kidney stones, from which she died, having lived only twenty-five years. The younger sister, still alive, is a beautiful and very pious woman.” [1, p. 9, 10.]
The children grew up in an atmosphere of Christian love and obedience. Valentin was an active, very observant and inquisitive child. From the cradle he saw how reverently his father and mother prayed with a large number of bows many times a day; from the age of three, Valentin joined them. As V. A. Lisichkin writes: “Gymnasium student Valentin was under strict control both at home and in the gymnasium. Strict home religious and gymnasium upbringing instilled in Valentin from childhood a deep sense of responsibility before God for all his actions and deeds. From his mother, the boy acquired a strong will and imperious character, and from his father, piety... The family lived very friendly, everyone helped and loved each other.” [9, p. 22.] In his memoirs, Saint Luke also mentions that, having not received a religious upbringing as such, he inherited religiosity “mainly from his very pious father.” [1, p. 10.]
In 1889, the Voino-Yasenetskys moved to Kyiv and settled in the city center, on Khreshchatyk. Valentin entered the Second Kyiv Gymnasium. The rules of behavior here were as strict as in the previous gymnasium. Valentin studied very well, with enthusiasm. I especially loved history and drawing lessons. The parents took the boy's gift seriously. Therefore, when he was 13 years old, he was sent to the Kyiv art school.
Nearby was the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. The church life that was in full swing here, crowds of pilgrims from all over Russia went to worship the Kyiv shrines - all this could not but leave a mark on the life of young Valentin.
“The formation of Valentin’s worldview in the senior classes of the gymnasium was significantly influenced by his older brother Vladimir, a law student. Among the students of those years there was a strong passion for populist ideas. The books of I. S. Turgenev, L. N. Tolstoy and others also contributed to the rise of populist intellectuals among the people. Together with the brothers, Valentin shared a passion for the ethics of Leo Tolstoy” [9, p. 23.], writes V. A. Lisichkin. The passion was strong, Valentin imitated L.N. Tolstoy in everything: “he slept on the floor on a carpet, and in the summer, leaving for the dacha, he mowed grass and rye together with the peasants, keeping up with them.” [1, p. 11.] On October 30, 1897, he wrote a letter to L.N. Tolstoy, in which he asked to influence his stern mother, who did not approve of his plans to become a Tolstoyan. Valentin asked the count for permission to come to Yasnaya Polyana and live under his supervision. The letter remained unanswered. The answer was given by the Lord: L. Tolstoy’s book “What is My Faith?”, published abroad, fell into the hands of the young man, since this work was prohibited in Russia. But this book passed from hand to hand among the students and the older brothers brought it home. After reading the book, Valentin realized that Tolstoyism is nothing more than a mockery of Orthodoxy, and Tolstoy is a heretic, immeasurably far from the truth. Through the labors of his parents and teachers, Valentin’s spiritual world was built, as on a solid stone, on holy Orthodoxy.
So, Valentin successfully graduates from the gymnasium, and when presenting his matriculation certificate, the director gives the graduate a New Testament. Many passages in this holy book made an indelible impression on the young man. In his memoirs, Saint Luke recalls this: “But nothing could compare in the enormous power of impression with that passage in the Gospel in which Jesus, pointing to the disciples’ fields of ripened wheat, said to them: The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. So, pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest
(Matthew 9:37). My heart literally trembled, I silently exclaimed: “Oh, Lord! Do You really have few workers?!” Later, many years later, when the Lord called me to be a worker in His field, I was sure that this Gospel text was God’s first call to serve Him.” [1, p. 13.] The family keeps this book with Valentin’s notes, made then in red pencil.
Simultaneously with the gymnasium, he graduated from the Kyiv Art School, “in which he showed considerable artistic abilities, participated in one of the traveling exhibitions with a small picture depicting an old beggar standing with his hand outstretched.” [1, p. 10.]
His passion for painting was very serious, so after graduating from high school, Valentin decided to enter the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts.
A surprising decision was made by a young man pondering his choice of life path:
“Short hesitation ended in the decision that I do not have the right to do what I like, but I am obliged to do what is useful for suffering people. From the Academy I sent a telegram to my mother about my desire to enter the Faculty of Medicine, but all the vacancies were already filled, and I was offered to enter the Faculty of Science in order to then switch to medicine.” [1, p. 10.]
A dislike for the natural sciences changed this plan. Valentin enters the Faculty of Law and for a year enthusiastically studies the history and philosophy of law, political economy and Roman law.
The love for painting did not let go, and a year later he went to Munich to the private art school of Professor Knirr. “However, after three weeks, homesickness uncontrollably drew me home, I left for Kyiv and for another year, with a group of comrades, I intensively studied drawing and painting.” [1, p. eleven.]
Every day, and sometimes twice a day, Valentin went to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, often visited Kyiv churches and, returning from there, made sketches of the scenes that he saw in the Lavra and churches. Many talented sketches, sketches and drawings of praying people and Lavra pilgrims were made over almost a year of intense work.
A direction in Valentin’s artistic activity emerged, in which both Vasnetsov and Nesterov worked. “By this time I clearly understood the process of artistic creation. Everywhere: on the streets and on trams, in squares and bazaars - I observed all the pronounced features of faces, figures, movements and upon returning home I sketched it all. At an exhibition at the Kyiv Art School, he received a prize for these sketches of his.” [1, p. 12.]
This daily interaction with pilgrims and praying people during this “rather strange year” was a school of spiritual experience. Valentin inevitably came into contact with the spirit and soul of these people. It was then that the thought occurred to him that this was his flock.
The search for the right path in life, inseparably linked even then with serving the people, continued. Saint Luke recalls: “I could have entered the medical faculty, but again I was overcome by thoughts of a populist nature, and out of youthful ardor I decided that I needed to get down to work that was useful and practical for the common people as soon as possible. Thoughts wandered about becoming a paramedic or a rural teacher, and in this mood I once went to the director of public schools in the Kyiv educational district with a request to place me in one of the schools. The director turned out to be an intelligent and insightful person: he well appreciated my populist aspirations, but very energetically dissuaded me from what I was up to and convinced me to enter the medical faculty.” [1, p. 13.]
This finally decided the question of choosing a life’s work. Having overcome his aversion to natural sciences, Valentin enters the medical faculty of Kyiv University in order to become useful to the peasants, make their lives easier and benefit the people.
University
So, in 1898, Valentin became a student at the Faculty of Medicine of the Kyiv University named after St. Prince Vladimir.
I studied brilliantly. This is how Archbishop Luke recalls these years: “When I studied physics, chemistry, mineralogy, I had an almost physical feeling that I was forcing my brain to work on something that was alien to it. The brain, like a compressed rubber ball, tried to push out content that was alien to it. However, I studied straight A's and suddenly became extremely interested in anatomy. He studied bones, drew and sculpted them from clay at home, and with his dissection of corpses he immediately attracted the attention of all his comrades and the professor of anatomy. Already in my second year, my comrades unanimously decided that I would be a professor of anatomy, and their prophecy came true. Twenty years later I actually became a professor of topographic anatomy and operative surgery.” [1, p. 14.]
What scared many people away from medicine attracted him most of all. In his third year, Valentin became interested in studying operations on corpses. “There was an interesting evolution of my abilities: the ability to draw very finely and my love of form turned into a love of anatomy and fine artistic work in anatomical dissection and during operations on corpses. From a failed artist I became an artist in anatomy and surgery." [1, p. 14.]
Valentin was distinguished by high moral demands on himself and others, sensitivity to other people's suffering and pain, and open protest against injustice and violence. He was soon elected head of the course, which was an expression of respect and trust from his classmates. “In my third year, I was unexpectedly elected headman. It happened like this: before one lecture, I learned that one of my course comrades, a Pole, had hit another comrade, a Jew, on the cheek. At the end of the lecture, I stood up and asked for attention. Everyone fell silent. I made a passionate speech denouncing the ugly act of the Polish student... This speech made such a great impression that I was unanimously elected headman.” [1, p. 15.]
Valentin passed the state exams with straight A's, and the professor of general surgery told him during the exam: “Doctor, you now know much more than I do, because you know all the departments of medicine very well, but I have forgotten a lot that does not directly relate to my specialty.” " [1, p. 15.]
Integrity and truthfulness, aversion to the slightest lie have always distinguished Valentin: “Only in the exam in medicinal chemistry (now called biochemistry) did I get a C grade. I answered excellently on the theory exam, but I still had to do a urine test. As was, unfortunately, customary, the laboratory worker, for the money received from the students, told me what needed to be found in the first flask and test tube, and I knew that there was sugar in the urine that I was offered to examine. However, thanks to a small mistake, the Trommer reaction did not work out for me, and when the professor, without looking at me, asked: “Well, what did you find there?” “I could have said that I found sugar, but I said that Trommer’s reaction did not detect sugar.” [1, p. 15.]
This single C grade did not prevent him from receiving a doctor's diploma with honors.
At the university, he amazed students and professors with his fundamental disregard for career and personal interests. After graduating from the university, this born scientist announced that he would be... a zemstvo doctor - a most unprestigious, difficult and unpromising occupation.
“When we all received our diplomas, my fellow students asked me what I intended to do. When I answered that I intended to be a zemstvo doctor, they said with wide open eyes: “What, you will be a zemstvo doctor?! After all, you are a scientist by vocation!” “I was offended that they did not understand me at all, because I studied medicine with the sole purpose of being a village, peasant doctor all my life, helping poor people.” [1, p. 15, 16.]
Bibliography. Works of Saint Luke
I beg you
Brethren
,
beware of those who cause divisions and temptations
,
contrary to the teaching which you have learned
,
and turn away from them
(Rom. 16:17).
I beg you
,
brethren
,
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
,
that you all speak the same thing
,
and that there be no divisions among you
,
but that you are united in the same spirit and in the same thoughts
(1 Cor. 1:10).
The holy Apostle Paul begs you, begs you, which means that what he is talking about is extremely important.
If you do not do this, then woe to you.
Who is this about?
About those about whom the other Apostle says that false teachers will come, those who tear the robe of Christ will come.
Who is this?
These are the ancient heretics, these are also all those who separate from the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - these are all sectarians.
The word “sectarian” precisely means “separated.”
They separated from the Church of Christ, from that Church about which you hear and sing in the Creed: “I believe in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
They do not believe in the One Church, they do not believe in the Apostolic, Catholic Church, they do not believe in the Holy Church.
Isn't it scary?
Isn’t it scary to arbitrarily throw out words from the Creed, which was compiled by the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council and partially supplemented by the Fathers of the Second? Isn’t it scary to change anything in it?!
After all, the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils pronounced anathema on everyone who dared to subtract or add anything to this holy Symbol of the Orthodox Faith.
But sectarians are not afraid to subtract, sectarians are not afraid to cross out part of the Creed and be anathematized. What does this mean, why are they so impudent, so self-willed?
How to answer this question?
I must first say where sectarianism came from.
You need to know that in the ancient Church, the Church of the Apostolic times and the first times of Christianity, there were no sects, there were heretics, those who taught differently from the way the Holy Church teaches. They put their teaching in place of the teaching of the Church.
All these heretics were disgraced, rejected and anathematized by the holy Councils, and since then for many centuries there has been no division of the Holy Church.
The first very serious division - the division between the Eastern and Western Churches, Greek and Roman - followed in 1054.
I can’t talk much about the reasons for it now, because I would have to talk about it a lot and for a long time.
I will say more sometime in the future, but now I will only say that the basis of this division, no matter how hard it is to say, was the love of power of the Roman popes and the mistakes of the patriarchs of Constantinople, first of all, the love of power of the popes who wanted to take precedence and dominate the Church, who sought to rule the entire Church the way monarchs rule the state.
Enough about that.
In 1520, therefore a long time ago, a new schism occurred in the Holy Church.
Roman Church monk Martin Luther rebelled against papal abuses. He was the first schismatic, the first to tear the robe of Christ5.
He taught that one must be guided only by the Holy Scriptures, and completely rejected the value and significance of the Holy Tradition. He rejected the veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos, icons and relics. He rejected a whole series of Sacraments: he retained only two Sacraments - Baptism and Communion.
But the Sacrament of Communion in his understanding has lost all meaning of the Sacrament, for all Lutherans, Protestants and sectarians do not recognize what we recognize: they do not recognize that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread, blessed by the priest with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is transformed into the true Body of Christ, and wine - into His true Blood.
When we receive communion, we deeply believe that we are partaking of the true Body and Blood of Christ, but Protestants and sectarians do not believe in this, for them the Sacrament of the Eucharist is only the fulfillment of the covenant given by Christ at the Last Supper: Do this in My remembrance
(Luke 22:19).
They break bread, but in eating it they do not eat the Body of Christ.
I need to say even more about what was the consequence of the activities of this first schismatic of the Church, Martin Luther.
He allowed all the laity to interpret the Holy Scriptures as they pleased.
He allowed everyone to understand the Holy Scriptures as they pleased.
And what was the consequence of this?
The consequence of this was the rapid fragmentation of the Lutheran Church and all Protestant churches into many, many sects.
Each interpreted the Holy Scriptures in his own way, interpreted both the words of Christ and the words of the apostles, as it seemed to him correct. And since then, from the very time of the emergence of Lutheranism, there has been a constant fragmentation of Protestant churches into countless sects.
In America alone there are more than two hundred sects.
This is the first misfortune that was a consequence of Luther allowing everyone to understand the Holy Scriptures in their own way.
Another sad consequence of the free interpretation of the Bible was that learned German theologians subjected the entire Holy Scripture to merciless criticism, and in their enthusiasm some of them went so far as to deny the most important foundations of Christianity and even the very Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Germany there was a profound philosopher Hegel, whose philosophy at one time, in the 19th century, made a huge impression on all educated people.
And so a significant number of Lutheran theologians fell under the influence of this philosophy.
They based their theology not on the Gospel, not on the Epistles, not on the Acts of the Apostles, but on the philosophy of Hegel, and this led to the fact that they gradually began to move more and more away from the true foundations of Christianity.
But not all Protestants followed this path. The more reasonable part realized that this was death, that it would lead to godlessness. They are horrified that the Church is breaking up into countless sects. They realized that their destruction lies in fragmentation, and they strive with all their might to unite with the Church - either the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox. And there is already an abyss between these prudent Protestant Christians and the extreme liberals in theology who followed the path of Hegel’s philosophy.
May God send them His help, but I think that it is too late, for the Lutheran and Protestant churches are fragmented into a huge number of sects.
Why am I telling you this?
Then, so that you know that the majority of our sects have their origins in Protestantism; our sectarians - Baptists, Adventists, evangelists and many others - are purely Protestant sects. This is important for you to know, because if your heart is a Russian heart, if your ancient faith is Orthodox, then do you really want to change it with a light heart to the German faith?
The sectarians themselves do not know or understand this.
I heard about a conversation between an Orthodox Christian and a Baptist, a simple carpenter. An Orthodox Christian asked him: “How long has your sect existed?” “From the time of the baptism of Holy Rus' by Prince Vladimir,” he answered.
He is so ignorant that he does not know that the Shtunda, which later took the name of Baptistism, appeared in Russia only in 1864, and considers it an ancient Church.
Know that Russian Stundism began in the Odessa province from the preaching of Lutheran pastors, and the first to be caught in their sectarian networks were simple peasants: Mikhail Ratushny and Ivan Ryaboshapka.
They became the first preachers of Stundism.
They learned nothing, knew nothing, and believed everything the Lutheran pastors told them.
And today Baptists do not know that they are essentially Protestants. If you compare the doctrine of faith of the Baptists, set out in a very short pamphlet, with Lutheranism, you will see that it is almost a Lutheran faith.
But the Baptists themselves would be offended if we called them Lutherans, for they do not understand this.
To our great grief, many of the Orthodox are being seduced into the sects of Baptists and Evangelists.
Why are they seduced?
First of all, due to my ignorance and pride. For, please tell me, is it possible to answer as one peasant of the Staro-Krymsky region answered when he was asked why he switched to the Baptist sect: “I find that their faith is more just.”
He listened to the Baptists and immediately decided that their faith was more just: he decided that the faith approved by the Seven Ecumenical Councils was unjust; I immediately believed that the veneration of icons is idolatry.
With a light heart, he immediately rejected the teachings of the Orthodox Church. I was not afraid of those terrible words with which I began my speech today, I did not listen to that prayer of the saint. Paul, in which he warns all Christians against drifting into sects.
Even the Apostle Paul is not an authority for him. The Baptist teaching seemed to him more just than our Orthodox teaching, and he crossed out his old faith and moved to the Baptist sect.
What guides those who join sects?
They themselves talk about it this way: “We left the Orthodox Church because there are many drunkards, thieves and even murderers in it, and we do not want to be with the unclean. The Church must be holy, there must not be any serious sinners in it.”
What, what will we say in response to them?
Yes, you are partly right. Yes, indeed, to our shame, there are many sinners in our Church: there are drunkards, thieves, and adulterers.
But what, does the Church teach them this? Is it the Church’s fault that they willingly became thieves and adulterers? The church did not teach them this. The Church is not to blame for this.
In the Church there are a huge number of pure people, far from theft and fornication. And if there are unworthy people, isn’t this the result of their own disposition, disobedience to the Church?
The sectarians say: “Why don’t you persecute them, don’t expel them from the Church, why don’t you follow the advice of the Apostle Paul to get out of their midst?”
Let us read the authentic words of the Apostle Paul and see whether they really apply to sinful members of the Church from which we must leave.
This is what St. wrote. Paul: Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship has righteousness with iniquity? What does light have in common with darkness? What agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What is the relationship between the temple of God and idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God said: I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean; and I will receive you
(2 Cor. 6:14–17).
From these words of St. Paul, the sectarians conclude that they must leave the Church, because it is unclean.
But is St. speaking about us, about the Orthodox, or about Christians in this text? Paul?
He speaks about pagans, about unclean idolaters, and says that Christians should not have fellowship with unclean pagans.
What does it mean that the sectarians call us idolaters?
Can there be a big lie and slander against us?
Do we silently tolerate grave sinners in our Church?
Read the Canons of the Church and you will see that Councils and the greatest saints, like Basil the Great, punished gross sinners with the most severe punishments.
St. Basil determined that murderers should be excommunicated from Communion of the Holy Mysteries for twenty years, and adulterers for eighteen years.
For many years they were forbidden to even enter the temple, and they had to stand at the church doors, asking those entering for forgiveness and prayers for themselves.
In our time, these very severe punishments have been mitigated, but we also excommunicate and prohibit sinners from receiving Communion. And in my diocese I instruct priests not to give absolution in confession to those guilty of serious sins.
Why do sectarians slander us, as if we are indifferent to the fact that there are many sinners in the Church?
If we carefully read the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, we will learn that there were many sinners in the Corinthian Church: there were great constant litigations that took away the property of their neighbors, there were thieves, there were even those who did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Well, St. excommunicated them. Paul?
No, he excommunicated only one: for incest, he excommunicated his father, who had a wife instead of a wife.
The assertion of sectarians that in the Orthodox Church there are many aggravated with the grossest sins is incorrect: bandits and drunkards, libertines and thieves excommunicate themselves from the Church and do not belong to it.
The sectarians making such accusations are no different from those enemies of Christ who accused the apostles of the saints of eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners. They even called the Savior Himself a friend of tax collectors and harlots. Let us also be called friends of sinners: we take pity on sinners and try to guide them to the path of repentance.
We do not act as sectarians act in pride, in their self-holiness, condemning sinners, declaring that they do not want to be in communion with them.
But the Apostle Paul at the beginning of his Epistle calls all the Corinthian Christians saints, so soft was his heart, so far from condemnation.
Why does he call them that if there were sinners among them? Because you need to know that in the New Testament the word “saints,” often applied to Christians, is not equivalent to the word “sinless.” Saints were called all those cleansed from spiritual filth in the bath of Holy Baptism, all who became close to God because they followed Christ. No matter how they sinned, no matter how they fell, they were called saints because they strived for holiness.
But Baptists and evangelists only consider themselves righteous. Their striking distinctive feature is to consider themselves redeemed, saved, saints.
I had the opportunity to attend a Baptist meeting incognito for three months in order to get to know the sectarians by direct observation, because I needed this as a bishop.
I heard many of their sermons, but not a single sermon about humility and repentance.
Baptists most often spoke about the Resurrection of Christ, by which they were sanctified. They reject the sacrament of repentance; they have no need to repent, for they are already holy, already redeemed, already pure and cannot sin.
Isn't this spiritual pride?
The Apostle James says about Christians and even about himself: we all sin a lot (James 3:2).
And the Apostle John the Theologian says this: If we say that we have no sin,
–
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we say that we have not sinned, then we represent Him as a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10).
This is what the holy apostles say, and the sectarians, in spiritual pride, consider themselves saved and pure.
Well, let them go their own way: we do not have the power to correct everyone.
I can do one thing: to warn you, Orthodox Christians, against drifting into sects. And in order to impress upon your hearts what a grave, what a terrible sin, what a destruction it is to join a sect, to schism, I will read to you the words of the great saints.
Hieromartyr Cyprian: “People who do not maintain union and sincere communion with the Church, even if they gave themselves up to death for confessing the name of Christ, their sin will not be washed away even by blood itself; the indelible and grave guilt of division is not cleansed even by blood.”
Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Do not be deceived, brethren; whoever follows the one who causes the schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
And St. Irenaeus, a very ancient bishop, says this: “Everyone who separates himself from the Church is alien to her, he is not needed by her, he is her enemy. He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father.”
Aren't these words scary?
Remember them, remember them.
I would have to say a lot more about the sectarians, about their teaching: I have not yet begun to talk about how they relate to the Church, how wrongly they judge it; did not tell why the Church of Christ is called One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
If God permits, I will continue my conversation about sectarians another day, and today I will add only a little: I will say that the basis for deviation into sects is very often the ignorance of those who deviate.
Let me explain with an example.
Chapter 11 of the Gospel of Luke tells how a Pharisee invited the Lord Jesus Christ to dinner and was surprised that the Lord did not wash his hands before dinner.
But in Slavic this place is read differently: Christ was not baptized before dinner.
(Luke 11:38).
And so the ignorant sectarians point out to us that Christ Himself was not baptized before dinner.
What to answer to this?
Oh, you poor, poor people!
After all, you are completely ignorant, you don’t know either the Slavic or the Greek language, you don’t know that in Greek the word “baptizo” means to baptize, just as we baptize children by immersing them in water, calling on the name of the Holy Trinity. But they do not know that this Greek word also has another meaning - washing.
Therefore, in the Russian text we read that the Pharisee was surprised that Christ did not wash his hands before dinner.
Think about it: could He make the sign of the cross before His crucifixion on the Cross, which only after that became a symbol of our salvation? Could the apostles have been baptized then?
We began to be baptized, to sign ourselves with the sign of the cross, when Christ on the Cross redeemed us from the legal oath.
And ignorant sectarians, referring to this Slavic word, reject our greatest defense, protection from all the wiles of the devil.
And you, Christians, as the greatest shrine, always keep the sign of the Cross of the Lord!
