Website of the Gorlovka and Slavic diocese
How does the life of a priest change after ordination?
Does he have to be different from everyone else? What prohibitions does the priesthood impose? Is it permissible for the clergy to be rich and where do Mercedes come from in the Church? Is God’s will for a person revealed to a priest and is it permissible to ask for his blessing for every step in one’s life? About the rich and the poor among priests, occupations compatible and incompatible with the rank and the true purpose of those who have embarked on this path.
Where do priests get Mercedes?
The image of the “butt in a Mercedes” remains a trend in news and television programs to this day. The topic of the wealth of priests has been greatly exaggerated. Often everything is exaggerated. Let's start with the car. Why does a priest need a car? A priest has many responsibilities and his day is very busy. After the liturgy - performing services, visiting hospitals, funerals, weddings, baptisms, conversations at school, visiting nursing homes, correctional colonies... Nowadays, a priest simply cannot get anywhere without a car. “Not a luxury, but a means of transportation.” When my car broke down, I couldn’t get anywhere. Taking a taxi is quite expensive.
Now about car brands. Some advise priests to travel almost on a scooter or bicycle, or in a car that is thirty or more years old and which takes longer to repair than to drive. This is also wrong. I serve in a fairly poor city (especially before the war). However, among our clergy there is not a single priest driving a Mercedes. I don’t see the kind of priests they show on TV - that someone has a Mercedes, someone has a Gelendvagen, someone wears Gucci or Armani. We don't have those.
A priest is a “slice” of the flock among whom he serves. If his parish has very wealthy parishioners, or he lives in a large, wealthy city where his relatives do business, he can buy himself a more expensive car that won’t break down every month. We have many priests who serve in rural parishes. The parishioners there are poorer. The temple has shabby decoration, and the priest drives a modest car.
There are priests who, having received an expensive business-class car as a gift from sponsors or rich relatives, are proud of it and are not going to change to a more modest car. This causes indignation among people: they do not understand why, without having a corresponding income of their own, he drives such an expensive car. As a rule, such people are random in the Church. There are few of them, they stand out from the rest of the priests, television reporters pay attention to them, each such case is inflated as much as possible and widely covered in the press. I am also categorically against this. It seems to me that the car should be good, reliable, but inexpensive. I would urge such priests to think about the fact that they are confusing people.
For most priests, a car is simply his workhorse. Lanos, Chevrolets, Renaults are the most ordinary and modest cars that do not cause any surprise on the city streets. These are used by doctors, teachers, and factory workers. Look at your priest’s car: as a rule, it is in the middle price segment.
It happens that a person comes to the Svyatogorsk Lavra and sees a lot of expensive cars there. He thinks these are all clergy machines. In fact, very rich guests and deputies of all levels come to the Lavra for major holidays. Their cars are parked at the Lavra.
Many people look at what kind of cars the bishops and the patriarch drive, who are entitled to a business-class car due to their status - in order to be perceived in the highest circles of power, where they have to decide issues important for the Church - and think that all priests are absolutely rich. But that's not true. Go to the Ozeryanovsky Church and see in what conditions the priest serves there, to Nikitovka, to Golma, to Kondratievka, to Bessarabka. Believe me, there is no talk of any Mercedes there. Whoever wants to, come visit me. I live in the most ordinary apartment, I drive the most ordinary car and I don’t have any millions.
Imagine if the patriarch or metropolitan arrives in a Tavria or a Lada to meet with the president. This will only cause laughter and misunderstanding. The Patriarch is the head of the Church. The entire Church is judged by it - whether it is a collection of only some illiterate peasants and poor people, or whether influential, highly erudite and successful people are considered an honor to belong to it.
We have always strived to bring the best to the Church. Look at the lamps in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, at the decorations of the icon cases of many icons. Previously, the icon cases and lamps of our temples were decorated with precious stones and gold, today they try to cover even cheap metal with gold. It was not allowed for the face of the Church to look poor and wretched. People like Serbian Patriarch Pavel, who rode trolleybuses, are an exception to the rule. Such phenomena are condemned and discussed, tried to be accepted or treated with outright misunderstanding.
Now about clothing and liturgical accessories. Like any quality item, they cost some money. Cassocks, for example, are not cheap. I and many other priests have two. I've been wearing them for several years.
How to become a priest
To become a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, you must graduate from a special seminary . To enter such an educational institution, a recommendation from the rector of the temple and the dean (who oversees the temples in a certain district) is required. To receive such a recommendation, future seminarians first “serve at the altar”—assist during divine services at the altar of a local church.
To enter the seminary, you must pass the Unified State Exam and internal exams . You will also need to go through several preliminary interviews (with the rector, dean and other authoritative clergy). When passing the entrance exams, applicants live in the seminary for about a week. During this time, they undergo various obediences and 4-5 interviews.
At the seminary, future clergy study special subjects (liturgics, theology, Greek, Latin), as well as secular disciplines (rhetoric, history, English, psychology, vocals). During their studies, seminarians must perform various obediences (removing snow, peeling potatoes, serving at the altar, etc.).
Like any educational institution, the seminary has holidays - about 5 days after Christmas, 3-4 days after Easter and 1-1.5 months in the summer. Like all students, seminarians receive a stipend - about 2,000 rubles (excellent students receive a little more).
After graduating from the seminary, newly minted clergy are assigned to a specific temple . They are usually sent to the areas in which they lived before admission (but sometimes there are exceptions).
The first position a seminary graduate receives is reader . His responsibilities include assisting during worship, cleaning the altar and performing small household tasks. salary is small - about 20,000 rubles . The clergyman will remain in this position until he marries or takes monastic vows.
After marriage, a young clergyman can become a deacon . The deacon also assists the priest during worship. He can also teach Sunday school. But the deacon does not have the right to perform the holy sacraments (baptism, confession, wedding, etc.).
After some time, the deacon can become a priest in the church. The hero of our story serves in this position for 6 years. In the future, the priest can become the rector of the temple, the dean (he oversees the work of the churches in his district) or the secretary of the diocesan administration (the head of the dean of the diocese).
The next step in the career ladder of a clergyman is the position of bishop. However, only those people who have taken monastic vows can occupy it.
About “fat butts”
There is a photograph circulating on the Internet where a very plump priest blesses a thin woman. Everyone laughs and comments, but few people know that this priest has a very serious illness - diabetes - due to which he is overweight. People are not interested in this, they need to laugh. Many priests have a metabolic disorder: they spend a lot of time on their feet. Some people have diabetes, others have stomach ulcers. Most priests in our diocese are thin, and if someone has problems with weight, then, as a rule, he has health problems.
Fat priests are accused of eating too much, and parishioners are ordered to strictly fast. This is also far-fetched. I will never allow myself to impose a strict fast on someone. On the contrary, before the start of each fast, I explain to my parishioners that we must fast according to our strength. I know that all the other priests with whom I communicate do the same. I also know that all the priests I know strictly observe fasts themselves. They also strictly observe the Eucharistic fast before each liturgy.
Can a priest lose his job?
An ordinary priest and even the rector of a church are dependent people. If they do not have a good relationship with the dean, then professional, domestic and financial problems may arise as a result. Ordinary “church workers” have virtually no protection. As punishment, a clergyman may be transferred to another church or even banned from serving. In the latter case, he will lose the opportunity to earn money.
If a clergyman is sent “out of state” or “forbidden ,” then he will only be able to serve as an ordinary reader. The salary of readers is several times less than that of full-time priests. Also, readers cannot perform prayers and receive additional income. After several years of serving as a reader, the offending priest may be reinstated. But if a clergyman is defrocked , then he will forever lose the opportunity to serve.
A ban in ministry is the fear of every priest. Most clergy do not have any education other than seminary. They don't know how to make money in other ways. Moreover, most priests have large families. A ban on ministry can be appealed only in a diocesan or church-wide court.
Is wealth not a vice?
Can a priest even be noticeably richer than his parishioners? Every priest, first of all, is a person. Someone has a talent for speaking and becomes a popular preacher. Someone is an excellent builder, someone is an organizer, and in his parish he has all kinds of clubs and various forms of leisure. Someone has entrepreneurial talent, and he opens the production of fireweed tea, natural wax candles or something else in his parish. If, thanks to his talents, a priest was able to earn some money, his duty is to spend it, first of all, on the needs of his parish. If he spends it only on his family, while his temple remains in a deplorable state, I condemn it.
It is great if a priest can earn money through his labor. The main thing is that at the same time everything will be fine at his parish and a friendly community will gather there. But if the church requires repairs, the Sunday school does not work, there is no library, and the priest buys himself an expensive car, the clergy will first of all pay attention to such a priest and give him a severe reprimand.
Each priest has a family and relatives, so he may have “extra” property - have a second apartment or dacha, if it is left to him as an inheritance or his wife owns it. The priest lives by the same laws as the rest of society. There's nothing wrong with that. In the current conditions, a dacha will help the priest survive, and an apartment will eliminate the need to save for housing for his children.
Second department. Life of a priest
The first persons with whom the priest most often has relations are his parishioners. Living among them; he constantly sees them before him: they turn to him in response to their religious needs, and often for their private affairs, and he himself appears to them not only when he needs to bring them a word of religious consolation and perform one or another church service for them. I demand, but also when he is called to it not by spiritual, pastoral motives, but by communal economic needs. Establishing good relations between himself and his parishioners is a matter of worldly wisdom for the pastor, which he must take care of in terms of his own good, and at the same time in terms of more successfully achieving the goal indicated to him by his ministry or the Church that called him to this service.
The pastor's relationship with his parishioners should be determined by the spirit of love that he should have for his spiritual children, and respond with cordiality. Everyone addresses the priest in his parish with the word: father
or
father
. This is not an empty word. It indicates the tone that a priest should maintain in his daily relations with parishioners, as members of one spiritual family. The priest should, by his behavior towards parishioners, justify this significant name, which was approved for him not only by custom, but also by the Church. A priest does not live up to this name if he has a cold, purely official relationship with his parishioners, and does not want to know or do anything that goes beyond the boundaries of this cold formality. He shows little attention and love to his parishioners if he only wants to be serviceable in his position and does not make him wait long if he is called to perform some kind of service, in church or in the house. What is required and expected from him, as a spiritual father, is heartfelt participation in the situation and affairs of his spiritual children, direct, so to speak, family closeness to them. Due to this closeness, the priest will not meet his parishioner with a stern look when he turns to him on any occasion, and will not be stingy with a warm word for him. Because of this closeness, he will not shy away from what his parishioners live by, and what worries and occupies them, but with heartfelt readiness he will enter into their position and their interests, share their joy and their grief, and will not refuse to give them good advice in these or other difficult circumstances of their lives. It seems to us desirable such an attitude of the priest towards his parishioners, so that they, lovingly attached to him and confident in his attention to themselves, see in him their closest leader, and turn to him, and not to anyone else, with their perplexities and difficulties , with their worries and assumptions, with their sorrows and joys, and so that he would be their adviser, and trustee, and judge, and resolver of all disputes.
The closeness of a priest to his parishioners should not extend to complete influence and equality with them in habits and in the internal disposition of life and to the derogation of pastoral authority in front of them. Being close and accessible to all of his parishioners, the priest must not lose sight of the dignity with which he is endowed by the Church, and in all relations with them must behave in such a way as not to lose his dignity. It is necessary that his parishioners not only love him, but at the same time honor him as a servant of God and their spiritual father. It is necessary that he appear before them not only as a friend and comrade, but also as a father, having supreme power over them, given to him through the Church from God, and as a father before a comrade and friend. In order to maintain his pastoral authority before the parishioners at the proper height, the priest does not need to clothe himself in front of them with feigned liturgical importance, he does not need to adopt managerial habits and a high tone in dealing with ordinary people. These external means, striking the eye, in themselves are not sufficient for the purpose in the present case and cannot create respect for the priest in hearts that seek the spirit, the content in the person who comes into contact with them, and cannot be content with one form for a long time; they will rather remove his parishioners from the priest, who, with the shepherd’s commanding methods of dealing with them, will close their souls before him, weaken and diminish those ordinary ties that should exist between the shepherd and his spiritual children. You can behave simply with ordinary villagers, without assuming any importance, and it is better to behave simply; You just need to avoid anything that could compromise the priest. This is the main thing that a priest needs to take care of in order to maintain pastoral authority and gain respect from parishioners. In these types, the priest, in his treatment of parishioners, will not descend to empty jokes and shallow jokes with them, will not allow cynical conversations and rude squabbles of one or another of the parishioners in his presence, will not participate in their drinking bouts and village amusements. Our simple people are accustomed to sharing bread and salt with their shepherds, and on the days of any celebrations, church or family, when they see a priest in their homes, they consider it their duty to treat him. You may not refuse an offer to share a meal with a parishioner if this offer is made from a good heart and sincere affection for your spiritual father; a harsh refusal, perhaps, can insult the love and zeal of a good spiritual son. But when sharing the proposed meal, the priest needs to set an example of sobriety and abstinence. If, on the contrary, they notice in him weakness and inebriation, if, while accepting a parishioner’s treat, he allows any excess that is reprehensible even in a low-ranking person, he will thereby lower his rank and his authority and undermine the respect for himself among those people who should honor him as their spiritual father.
In order not to disrupt good relations with his parishioners, the priest needs to have a lot of leniency and generosity and not be too persistent in his demands. One or another of the parishioners may bother him with petty, perhaps inappropriate, requests, they may pester him with annoying statements, they may turn to him with demands that he cannot satisfy. You need to listen patiently to such statements and not burst into angry words, even when you see the inappropriateness of the request made to you. You can calmly and with self-control explain to those making inappropriate requests and desires in front of you why you cannot accept them and act on them. There may be impoliteness and a rude tone on the part of ordinary parishioners in dealing with the priest; It is beneath the dignity of a priest to be offended by this: most often, manifestations of rudeness and impoliteness on the part of ordinary villagers depend not on their ill will and deliberate desire to cause trouble for their priest, but on their lack of education, on their inability to put themselves in proper relations with people higher than them, and speak decently before them. In cases of noticed ignorant form of treatment of one or another parishioner, you can, without getting angry, calmly and affectionately give him friendly or fatherly instruction.
There are very possible cases of clashes and bickering between a priest and his parishioners regarding any issues that arise during everyday relations between people living in the neighborhood and using mutual services, for example, when paying for any hired work done for the priest by one of his parishioners, when buying or selling any thing, when a question arises about the right to own one or another piece of land, etc. It is neither good nor propitious if a priest, with his pretentiousness or spirit of self-interest, excites and causes a dispute over such material interests. And if they arise against his will, he must try all the ways of a peaceful, loving resolution of the dispute, and at the same time must remember that his rank and position are more consistent with compliance than inexorable demands and insistence. If his personal material interest is involved in the matter, the priest can sacrifice it so as not to disrupt or spoil good relations with his spiritual children. By yielding to his interest, for which formal law may stand, he will show a good example of Christian behavior to others; with this he can further elevate his authority when they see those Christian motives in the name of which he is ready to renounce his formal rights, and he is unlikely to make a mistake from the point of view of material interests if he once or twice sacrifices his benefits in favor of his parishioners in clashes with them. In addition to the sense of peace purchased by such compliance, he will find justification for himself on the part of the best part of his parish, which cannot fail to notice the Christian spirit guiding its shepherd, and the conscience of the people will not allow him to abuse the kindness of his spiritual father, and will provide him with a reward for those losses that he had previously suffered as a result of his compliance with the parishioners and the desire to live peacefully with them. Meanwhile, a priest complaining to the court about his parishioner about disagreement due to some worldly interest is a phenomenon that says little in his favor, even if he was right, and the law and external law were completely on his side . The judgment of conscience and the spirit of forgiveness are more characteristic of him than the search for external truth before a civil court. And that priest who makes frequent complaints and calls to court to one or another of his parishioners, through this gains neither the love nor the respect of his parishioners, but only shows himself to be a person alien to the pastoral spirit. A guiding warning in this case can be for the priest the well-known instruction of St. Paul, addressed to all believers, in which the apostle reproaches them for the fact that, when dealing with others, they turn to worldly courts. And that’s already quite humiliating for you
(says the apostle)
that you have disputes among yourself.
Why would you rather not remain offended? Why would you rather not endure hardship? But you yourself offend and take away, and from your brothers (1 Cor. 6:1-8). If the apostle found it appropriate and necessary to address ordinary believers with such a word, then all the more should it be applied to the behavior of a priest, minister and teacher of peace and love par excellence. All parishioners are his children in spirit, and fatherly love for them should not allow him to have harsh arguments with them on everyday matters and legal complaints against them.
However, the priest’s compliance and desire for an amicable resolution of the matter in clashes with his parishioners must have its limits. Where the matter concerns one personal interest of the priest, he can act, guided by the spirit that our Lord instilled in everyone in His Discourse on the Mount, saying: whoever wants to sue you and take your robe, let him have the sue as well.
(Matt. 5:40). But when he notices an encroachment not on his personal interest, but on the interests of the church, when, for example, they want to take possession of money or property belonging to the church in which he is assigned as its rector, or when they want to cut off the land given to him from the clergy of his church to ensure his existence, he is obliged to come to the defense of the church and clergy, he is obliged to defend the right to own this or that property, illegally taken away by someone’s selfish aspirations. The property of the church or clergy should not be allowed to be illegally stolen. In this case, in the name of the interests of the church, the priest is forced to take all legal measures to keep with the church what has been given to it and what previously belonged to it, and going to court or initiating civil complaints will not then serve to humiliate his dignity. Rather, he will be guilty of negligence about the welfare of the church if, out of his kindness and compliance, he allows him to take away from the church what undeniably belonged to it. The same should be done precisely when any trouble is caused to the priest, for example, gross blasphemy is leveled at him or an impudent insult is given to him. The duty of Christian love prompts him to patiently endure the insult inflicted on him, so far as his personality is concerned. But when at the same time an insult is caused not to his personality, but to his dignity, or when the shrine of the Church is desecrated along with him and the faith that he must defend and protect before everyone is subjected to public ridicule, then even with all the readiness to forgive a personal insult, the priest can and must to ask the law and the authorities that protect it to protect from desecration what should be the subject of general veneration and reverence.
In the relationship of a priest to his parishioners, the income that he receives from them for his service and corrective services for them, and which he has the right to count on when entering the place, is important. Among the means of providing for sacred church services, in the first place, according to our church and civil decrees, are the voluntary donations of parishioners for the fulfillment of church and parish requirements for them. These voluntary donations from parishioners very often serve as a stumbling block against which the pastor’s good relationship with his spiritual children is broken, and which gives rise to many quarrels and troubles for both interested parties, i.e. both the priest and his parishioners. Many priests are dissatisfied with this way of providing their support - dissatisfied, firstly, because they find it unseemly and humiliating for themselves, and secondly, because they find that this source is subject to various accidents and puts them in direct dependence on the parishioners , and, thirdly, because by not providing them with security to the extent that they would like, it forces them to be demanding where everything should be left to good will alone. And parishioners are often burdened by this obligation to pay their priest for his service, and when need forces them to turn to the priest for a holy religious matter, if they are poor, they are much troubled by the thought of the reward that, according to custom, follows the priest for his work. If at the same time the priest, directly or through others, reminds the parishioner that he is not entirely satisfied with the reward given to him, gossip and complaints will begin, and the good peace between the priest and his spiritual children will be broken. In our people, with all their religious system, there are a lot of sayings that are offensive to the honor of the priest, and they owe their origin to the fact that the priest, if he wants to have a means of living, must accept alms from his parishioners, willy-nilly.
In order to eliminate unnecessary reasons for mutual displeasure between the priest and parishioners and to place themselves in a more independent position before them, many priests strongly expressed the desire that they be freed from the need to accept voluntary alms, which are often difficult for both sides, i.e. for givers and receivers, and that these voluntary donations be replaced by a certain monetary salary from the treasury. The government, starting with Emperor Peter I, also had the idea of replacing voluntary alms with salaries from the treasury; In particular, a lot of thought was given to its implementation under Alexander I, and since then, like manna from heaven, the clergy had been waiting for a salary that would improve their position and in which they saw the most noble way of ensuring their maintenance. Under Nicholas I, this idea was partially implemented when the project of new states for rural parishes was put into effect (1847), and when in many dioceses they began to issue certain salaries from the state treasury to the parishes of city and rural churches. Nowadays there is a government salary for church clergy in almost the majority of dioceses, and there is none in the internal dioceses of Great Russia and Siberia. But even where there is a salary for the clergy, the need to accept voluntary alms is not eliminated. The salary is not given in such an amount that it could fully support the maintenance of the clergy (with the exception of some privileged dioceses); it serves only as an aid to other means of maintenance that our clergy may use. Our priests would find themselves in great difficulty if they were forced to be content with one salary. And the state treasury cannot provide our clergy with more content that can cover all the needs of the clergy, given the sources of income that it has. At the same time, others, both zealous for the good of the Church and sympathizing with the position of the clergy, find that the disadvantage of providing the clergy with government salaries is that with it the priest turns into a civil official, that with him the internal ties of the priest with his parishioners are weakened, and he becomes much more further from them than under the previous procedure for ensuring his maintenance on the part of the parishioners themselves, and the removal of a priest from his parishioners for any reason is undesirable.
There have been projects, and now desires are being expressed, to replace random voluntary donations from parishioners for the needs of the church clergy not with a government salary, but with a certain annual contribution assigned by the parish community and collected from all members of this community in a certain amount, regardless of how many times and for what needs the priest appears to one house or another. Provided with the agreed contents, delivered at the appointed time, the priests, in this order of things, would already fulfill all the requirements without compensation and would not see the need to take a surety, often a penny, payment for the holy work they perform for the parishioners. Even in the Spiritual Regulations such a measure was projected. In paragraph 22 of the Addendum to the Regulations on the rules of church clergy we read: “It is His Imperial Majesty’s intention to order the church in such a way that a sufficient number of parishioners is assigned to each, and to determine that every parish person owes a yearly clergy to his church, so that the alms of those All that matters is that he could have a satisfied treatise. For this reason, according to His Imperial Majesty's Decree, the Holy Governing Synod, in agreement with the honest secular authorities, will compose a council and establish a deliberate definition. And when this happens, the priests will not have to seek even the slightest reward for their services, as determined by them, unless someone, out of goodwill, wants to give something, but also not at the time when the priest is correcting some need, but for several weeks later." As the reader can see, more than a century and a half ago in government spheres there was an idea of replacing random payments for services to the priest with a certain annual remuneration from the parish community. But the long time that has passed since the drafting of the Regulations has not brought this idea any closer, despite the fact that in heterodox societies there are examples of such remuneration to the clergy for their service - and our priests still cannot avoid the need to take money from parishioners when perform one or another church-religious requirement for them. From time to time you come across news in the newspapers that here or there zemstvos or societies have decided to provide church clergy, instead of a surety payment for services, with a sufficient annual allowance, and such news is usually accompanied by panegyric comments and wishes that the example set by this or that society be found as many imitators as possible. But we do not see or hear that such a procedure for remunerating clergymen has come into general use, and cases of transferring voluntary random alms to a permanent, determined annual remuneration from the community remain isolated and exceptional phenomena. Yes, even if such an order of things were established in life, it would hardly have completely freed our priests from any grumbling about extortions and removed from them any shadow of displeasure aroused in parishioners by the duty to reward the priest for his service. A sum would be collected from peasants or parishioners, which should go towards the maintenance and remuneration of the clergy. Whenever they demanded the appointed payment from one or another parishioner for the salary of the clergyman, those who are now burdened by the debt of remunerating the priest for services could also be dissatisfied with this demand, and just as now, they could grumble against the priest . And if this were the case, i.e. The determination of the annual remuneration for priests was left entirely to the will of the communities; can it not be expected that they would, if possible, strive to reduce and reduce this remuneration?
Thus, voluntary donations from parishioners to the priest for his needs still remain a necessity to which the priest must submit in order to provide for the maintenance of his family, and this necessity has not been eliminated by any projects drawn up at different times, and no measures taken by government officials or public figures . One must think that in future centuries these voluntary donations will remain one of the means, perhaps the main one, to ensure the provision of church services, and in a speech about regulating the relationship of the pastor to his parishioners, one inevitably comes across a question about this subject.
There is no need to be ashamed and shun this method of rewarding a priest for his service, and see in it a humiliation of the priestly office. This would be excessive scrupulousness on the part of a person who does not want to put up with the accepted living conditions. In society there are entire classes of persons placed quite high on the hierarchical ladder, for example doctors or physicians, who for their medical advice or for their visits receive a certain fee from their patients, live on this fee and make a significant fortune from it. And they are not ashamed of this, and no one sees this as a humiliation of their title and profession, no one denies them the respect they deserve for this. Why can’t the same thing take place in the life of the clergy and in their relations to the society that uses their services? This method of maintaining the clergy has long been established, by the practice of many centuries, and it has its basis in the Holy Scripture itself. The Lord also said: the worker of his wages is worthy
, when he sent His disciples to preach throughout the cities and villages of Israel, and when at the same time he did not order them to take with them neither gold, nor silver, nor copper, nor a bag for the road, nor two clothes, nor shoes, nor a staff, but allowed them eat and drink what is found and what is offered to them in those houses to which they bring the word of the gospel (Luke 10:7-8. Matt. 10:9-10).
The content that they will receive from those who receive them will, according to the instructions of the Savior, be their legal reward for the work that they do for them. The Apostle Paul loved to earn his own food with his own hands during his apostolic ministry, so as not to be a burden to others (2 Thess. 3:8-9. Acts 20:33, 34), but he asserts for the ministers of the Church the legal right to enjoy food and maintenance from those for whom they are appointed ministers. Or do we not have the power
(he says)
to eat and drink
(that is, to receive from others what we need for food)?...
What warrior ever serves on his own pay?
Who, having planted grapes, does not eat its fruit? Who, while tending a flock, does not drink milk from the flock? Am I only saying this based on human reasoning? Isn't that what the law says? For in the Law of Moses it is written: Thou shalt not stop the mouth of an ox that is threshing (Deut. 25:4).
Does God care about oxen?
Or, of course, is it said for us? Thus, this is written for us: for whoever plows must plow in hope, and whoever threshes must hope to receive what he expects. If we have sown spiritual things in you, is it great if we reap bodily things from you?... Do you not know that those who officiate are fed from the sanctuary? that those who serve the altar take a share from the altar? So the Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:4, 7-14).
And our guide book on the positions of parish elders
, referring to the passages of Scripture cited by us, notes that voluntary alms should be given in every possible way, according to the word of the Lord...43.
But when using voluntary alms, approved by custom and permitted by law, the priest in this case must be extremely careful so as not to give rise to displeasure on the part of the parishioners and not to cause criticism and accusations of greed. It is necessary that voluntary donations be voluntary in the full sense. Demanding more from parishioners than what they give or can give, bargaining with them over payment for performing any requirement, refusal to perform this or that liturgical action for them in the event of their failure to pay this or that amount of remuneration - in general, any type extortion is an extremely unworthy matter for a priest, which can both humiliate him in the eyes of parishioners and upset the good relations that a shepherd should have with his flock. Even the discovery of slight displeasure on the part of the priest towards a parishioner, if he does not give him the usual reward, or gives him too little, casts a shadow over him, and instills in the soul of the parishioner an unkind feeling towards his pastor. The pretension of a priest is especially inappropriate and even downright criminal when he knows the poverty of a person who turns to the priest to satisfy some religious need: in this case, not only does it not require payment for his work, he must reject the zeal of a good parishioner if he tries thank the priest, along with other more sufficient persons, beyond one’s strength,
Observing possible caution when accepting the usual remuneration to a church clergyman for his work, and at the same time avoiding any kind of selfishness, the priest is obliged to show complete selflessness when teaching any secret to his parishioners. He can accept remuneration from them if, against his will, it is offered to him by the zeal of the parishioner. But to demand any payment for the performance of the sacrament and the communication of sacramental grace is both sinful, offensive to the holiness of the sacrament, and contrary to the canons of the church and can subject it to legal penalties for simony. None of the bishops, or presbyters or deacons
(we read in Canon 23 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council),
while administering the Most Pure Communion, let him not demand money or anything else from the communicant for such communion.
For grace is not for sale: and we do not teach the sanctification of the Spirit for money, but we must teach it without subtlety to those worthy of this gift. If any of those among the clergy is seen demanding any kind of retribution from the one to whom he gives the most pure communion: let him be cast out, as a zealot of Simon's delusion and deceit .
With this rule in mind, the Book on the Positions of Parish Presbyters
44 gives the priest the following instruction: “When giving the mysteries, the presbyter must also remember that if it is so forbidden to sell a saint, that the priest who communes the Body and Blood of Christ, if he asks for one coppersmith, is subject to eruption, then, of course, you should take great care not to torture anything for performing the mysteries, according to the word of the Lord:
eat tuna, give tuna
(Matthew 10:8), but be content with voluntary alms...” “If (this Book continues, answering a possible objection) the priest with the clergy so wretched that he will be deprived of the necessary for his maintenance, then at other times, in addition to the alms of the sacraments, he can demand assistance from the parishioners, according to the power of the apostolic teaching:
dues when? the income of a priest if you do not make any demands regarding remuneration for correcting church requirements? Such a fear can hardly be justified. Rather, one would expect a demanding priest to receive less than a priest who is always content with what is offered to him. The pretentiousness of the priest predisposes the parishioners not to increase their usual gifts to him, but to a possible reduction in them: according to natural law, an increased demand on the one hand always causes a corresponding rebuff on the other. In this case, the terms of bargaining are applied, although it is completely inappropriate in the matter of priestly service: the more one asks, the less others want to give him. And if they agree on the amount of remuneration, in the essence of the matter they give the priest, at his request, the same payment that they would have given without his requests, only after the requests they give reluctantly and with displeasure, and a voluntary alms turns into an unpleasant and difficult forced donation. But if a priest is always and everywhere guided by the spirit of unselfishness, willingly goes to the call of a parishioner to fulfill any church requirement for him, without counting on how much he will be rewarded for this, and is always content with what is offered to him, then he will gain for himself there is an unhypocritical disposition in the parish, and after this the zeal of the parishioners will forestall his desires. The parishioners, satisfied with their priest and loving him, will surround him with their care, and for his needs they will provide him with more than he can demand, and if they see him in extremity, they will be ready to share with him everything they have. One cannot think that in the parish community, if there are no external disturbances, evasion of the obligation to support its church clergy with feasible offerings will become established. Based on the data of experience available to us, we believe that in the majority of its members, the mere sense of duty, by virtue of previous traditions, without any requests on the part of the priest, represents a rather strong incentive to provide him with a decent reward in any case when the priest serves in any way for his parishioners, and fulfills any requirement for them.
Some of the new priests are embarrassed to carry out the customary walks with the cross and prayers in the houses of parishioners on certain general or local church holidays - and not out of laziness and negligence, but out of excessive delicacy, so as not to give the parishioners a reason to give extra alms to the clergy and not be for they are a burden. Such a deviation from ancient customs cannot be justified, although one cannot help but recognize a certain amount of nobility behind the feelings that guide such priests. Good religious practices must be maintained where they exist. The attachment to the clergy and the Church and paternal piety that exists in our people rest on them and are preserved by them. If the priest, for whatever reasons, does not observe these customs and allows them to die out among the people, he will thereby contribute to the diminishment of the spirit of piety in them and their cooling towards the Church. It may be hard for a person with a delicate soul to go from house to house and often accept penny alms. What to do? What duty or custom requires, approved by time and approved by the Church, must be fulfilled. If any sacrifice is required, it must be made, one must suppress in oneself any embarrassment that may arise from a scrupulous and delicate feeling, with the awareness of the awkwardness of the situation created by custom. Moreover, it is hardly fair, when fulfilling this custom, to put the clergy’s monetary income in the first place. The first thing that is meant here and what is achieved by the appearance of a priest on a well-known holiday in the house of a parishioner with the sign of our salvation is the consecration of the house, bringing the blessing of the Church to the family, giving the celebration a religious character. Monetary income for a priest is more than a secondary thing. This is how the majority of Orthodox Christians look at this matter. Therefore, by evading this custom, the priest will not so much give pleasure to the parishioners by freeing them from the usual fee for his festive visit, but will offend them in their religious feelings. Of the hundreds and thousands in the parish, only a few who have lost faith will be happy that they did not see a priest in their homes on a well-known holiday, who needs to pay something for this, and the vast majority will feel bitterness and annoyance that the priest, having evaded the former custom, deprived their house of that consecration and blessing to which in certain days they were accustomed, but according to the traditions of their fathers and grandfathers.
Will the priest do well if he completely refuses to accept so-called voluntary alms from his parishioners, and insists that he never be paid for the demands that he fulfills for them? This can be afforded by a wealthy person who has an independent fortune or receives sufficient support from other positions, for example, teaching or teaching the law, often combined with the title of parish priest. But where voluntary alms exist as legal means of providing for the church clergy, and where they are not replaced by a certain annual remuneration, then such a wealthy priest should not do this. Let us assume that he himself does not need random income that takes the unseemly form of alms, and can easily do without it. But he must not only keep himself in mind; he must guard not only his own personal interest, but the general interest of his brothers and co-workers. By refusing any remuneration from parishioners, he can acquire for himself the glory of unselfishness, and rumors about him will spread from one parish to another. But next to him stands another priest, who has no provision, is in need and has a large family, and who, even if he wanted to, cannot refuse to accept voluntary alms. Will the rumor about the unselfishness of his neighbor, for whom this unselfishness costs nothing, cast a shadow on his name only because he cannot imitate the example of his brother? Will not his parishioners, pointing to the known example of the unselfishness of another priest, blame their spiritual father for not being like this one, and while praising him, blame him for something that in the essence of the matter cannot deserve reproach? It is not good if a priest, acquiring a flattering reputation for himself and thereby pleasing his pride, thereby harms others who bear the same title as him, but are placed in less favorable living conditions. In addition to his neighbors, a well-appointed priest should not lose sight of the interest of his successor. He himself does not take alms from parishioners and weans them from paying the priest for their services. But his place will be taken by another priest with meager incomes, for whom income from parishioners is essential. Will it be easy for him to reintroduce what his predecessor brought out? And how will the parishioners, who have already forgotten about the responsibility that lies with them in relation to their spiritual father, react to this? They will be burdened by those, albeit meager, contributions that they have lost the habit of and which they will be forced to make again. Comparison will involuntarily cause them to humiliate the successor before the predecessor, and the former, through the fault of the latter, will immediately put himself in awkward relations with the parishioners, who are not so easily corrected.
Is it easy to be a priest?
On the one hand, the city priest at the cathedral has more responsibilities, obediences and more fast days than the rural one. On the other hand, the priest in the village is thinking about how to heat the temple, where to get funds to pay employees from the meager temple income. I would not say that it is easy for any priest to serve. I served both in the cathedral of the city of Slavyansk and in a rural parish, I can compare and say that there is no easy service anywhere.
It is a big misconception to think that if services are held in a rural church only once a week, the rest of the time the priest sits there and is bored. I serve in the front-line village of Zaitsevo. I'll tell you about how the week of an ordinary rural priest goes. Friday and Saturday evenings are all-night vigils, Saturday and Sunday mornings are liturgy. During the week there is a prayer service. Participation in citywide services in cathedrals. Worship services are required on all holidays. Requirements Caring for every member of the community. Constant concern for maintaining your temple with dignity. Where can I find funds to heat the building? How to pay salaries to choristers, candle makers, and prosphora servers on time? What if the building needs renovation?
I wouldn't say that this is too easy work. If anyone wants to try themselves in this field, you are welcome. Finish the seminary and come to serve in the village. This is a job with a very modest salary and many responsibilities.
Knowing our ruling bishop, I can say with confidence that if we suddenly have a parish where “everything has already been done” and the priest just sits on a bench all day long and enjoys life, then such a rector will not stay with us for long. It's never possible to change everything. Even if the temple has already been built, the choir and Sunday school must be developed, missionary and educational work must be carried out.
Each priest of our diocese has a social card of the parish, which indicates orphanages, kindergartens, schools, hospitals, boarding schools for the elderly and disabled, correctional colonies and other institutions that he is obliged to visit. Not just come once a week to serve, but take an active part in their lives and respond to their needs. Many priests teach classes on Christian ethics in schools and speak to students of Foreign Languages and other educational institutions.
“You yourself are not going to become a priest, but your friend may be.”
— In your opinion, can we seriously expect that there will be more priests?
“It is important that the priests themselves put this issue on the agenda. If the Church recognizes this as a task, if conditions are created in the parishes for the emergence of new priests, then the situation can improve.
Recently, at a conference of one of the Moscow vicariates, I gave a report on how a priest is formed and what influences him. In particular, I expressed the opinion that the family plays a significant role in the formation of a priest. Moreover, in a normative situation, priests are born into large families. Until recently, there was no research on this subject in the Russian Church, but we know about the Catholic Church: the vast majority of its priests come from church families with many children. The reason is quite clear: large families are the most active part of the Church, the core of the parish; It is they who educate future priests, support them and bring them to ordination.
But these words of mine caused rejection and indignation. Why should the family be the central point of concern for the parish? And why on earth are priests born into families? And where have I seen a family that would support and educate a priest?
With such an attitude towards the family, of course, we will not have any priests. They will appear only if there is an awareness in the church environment that not only bishops, not only theological schools, not only priests, but all church people, every family is responsible for ensuring that there is a clergy in the Church.
This does not mean that all boys need to be oriented towards the priesthood - under no circumstances! But you need to raise your children, realizing that perhaps the Lord will call one of them to the priesthood, and you need to give him everything he needs for this. Young people must understand: if you want to be, for example, a physicist, you are welcome, but keep in mind that maybe the Lord will someday call you to be a priest. Therefore, do this, but it’s better not to do this. Only if such an understanding is formed in the Church - both among the priesthood and among parents - will we be able to qualitatively change the situation with the shortage of clergy.
“But in our realities, one can hardly expect that every large family will nominate at least one candidate for the clergy...
“I am convinced that becoming a priest should under no circumstances be “pushed”—there can be no artificial conscription or recruiting here. It is important that something else emerges among parishioners—a sense of responsibility for those who go to serve in the Church. Let's say you yourself are not going to become a priest, but maybe your friend will. And then you will have to, firstly, support his choice, and secondly, help him.
One priest of the older generation told me how he, with four children, left his secular work and went to study at the seminary. He had no means of support, and his friends helped him: they chipped in and paid for the life of his family. Although he was just studying and was still far from becoming a priest.
Now, if, with God’s help, it is possible to form such an attitude, then the situation can change - and only then will it change. Otherwise, the pool of those who can be priests seems to have simply been exhausted.
Photo by Alexey Myakishev
— How can ordinary parishioners take part in the formation of priests? Your story about friends supporting the family of a future priest is, of course, inspiring, but this is an exceptional case.
- Not as exceptional as it seems. In any case, previously among church people it was considered a holy thing to support a seminarian who wanted to become a priest. Money is easy to help: not always, but sometimes it solves something. But a completely different kind of support is also possible: you can spiritually and psychologically support his family, help do something, spend time with the children, even just show respect for his choice, treat him in advance as a future priest - a person who has sacrificed something for you, to whom you owe something.
This respectful attitude is very important for the formation of a priest. When he feels it, he treats himself and people accordingly; understands that he owes them a lot.
But of course, this is not a simple or universal situation. I know several cases when young people went to the seminary, and their friends, completely church people, did not support their choice in any way. On the contrary, they were skeptical about him. This external success arouses enthusiasm in people, and the decision to become a priest is often perceived as some kind of eccentricity. And those young people experienced it very hard, seriously and deeply.
—What is the situation today with those who want to become priests?
— The number of seminaries has increased greatly over the past 15–20 years. But they are all small and work to replenish the clergy of nearby dioceses - as has always been the case. But simple replenishment is not enough for the Church. And even simply reproducing the clergy is difficult, because there are a lot of young parishes in Russia. When will they bear fruit in the form of the next generation of clergy, people who grew up in these parishes and wanted to serve the Church! And new priests at these parishes will be needed soon, because
The “life cycle” of a priest is very short. He is usually ordained when he is about thirty years old, and when he approaches fifty he can no longer engage in any extra-liturgical activities. He can be a confessor, a shepherd, a minister, but it is already difficult for him to engage in the construction of a parish.
So we are doomed to be in a situation of clergy shortage. There is always a need for more priests than the parishes can provide. And yet, if church people are ready to work for this, if everyone somehow participates, then the Lord will respond, answer people’s requests, perhaps not even explicitly expressed.
Who can a priest be?
Often, a priest today not only does not own Mercedes and other luxury items, but is also forced to work as someone else in order to feed his family. At the same time, there is work that is compatible with the priesthood, and incompatible with it for moral reasons. For example, a priest cannot be an actor. Hypocrisy is not befitting the priesthood. Examples such as Ivan Okhlobystin will always cause public resonance. I am in no way trying to condemn his life, but for me personally these professions are incompatible.
The same applies to deputy, judicial, and prosecutorial positions. A priest cannot judge or have authority. This is a canonical rule. Not every business can be done by him. A business based on speculation and usury is unacceptable for a priest. I have never met a police or firefighter priest. I think that a priest will not be able to engage in such work that will take up almost all of his time. As they say, God’s is God’s, and Caesar’s is Caesar’s.
Contrary to popular prejudices, a priest can be a hunter or fisherman. The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is common to all Christians, although Christians can hunt or run their own farms and, for example, slaughter a chicken for soup. Some people think that a priest cannot even kill a mosquito. I’ll be honest, I don’t kill mosquitoes, I catch them with a vacuum cleaner, but I’ve never heard of such a ban.
Some people think that a priest cannot work as a doctor, lest he accidentally kill a person. But we have heard of an excellent example of a leading surgeon, from whose textbooks purulent surgery was taught for a long time - St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky). Today he is canonized. Many saints glorified by the Church were also doctors.
A priest can defend himself from criminals, protect his own or someone else’s life. If he sees lawlessness, a threat to the life of someone, as a citizen, he is obliged to prevent it. I don’t see the need for a priest to carry a weapon, but calling the police and stopping a criminal is his sacred duty. Besides being a priest, he is also a law-abiding citizen.
What happens if, in self-defense, a priest kills a man? Such things are considered by the church court. The Gospel says: Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). Many priests took part in the defense of cities and villages during the Great Patriotic War. It would be wrong to say that a priest cannot resist crime and must imitate the example of St. Seraphim of Sarov, who submitted to the robbers.
Priests are not afraid to drive a car, although this also involves a risk to their life. The only thing is that if a priest goes to give communion to a sick person, it is advisable to put someone else behind the wheel, because he should be focused only on the Holy Gifts that he is carrying.
I know priests who speak several languages and do translations. Some write articles and even fiction books. Rural priests strive to do something with their own hands. They cut doors, frames from wood, and make furniture. A priest can head an icon-painting workshop or a candle production workshop. There are priests who work in schools or even work as taxi drivers to survive.
The life of modern priests and the first Christian priests
Of course, there is only one similarity: the life of modern and ancient priests is inextricably linked with the parish. There they perform services, sacraments, and services. There they meet with parishioners, talk, and take on the burden of their sins.
There is still a significant difference. The ancient priests were persecuted by the enemies of the Church. Even bishops had to hide from persecutors and murderers. The Ancient Patericon describes many similar cases.
Now there are no persecutors of Christians, but modern priests are haunted by other sorrows and temptations. This is: “the charms of this world and money,” as Saint Seraphim of Vyritsky predicted. He said that in recent times many more souls will perish than during the times of open fight against God, and “persecution will have the most unpredictable character.”
Not a prehistoric dinosaur
Can a priest play sports or be a fan? There are gambling sports where people place bets and play for money. Then a person willy-nilly falls into sin. You can also root for your favorite team in different ways. If there is irritation, anger, anger, aggression, this is unacceptable. I have great respect for the sport itself. Since childhood, I have played football and go to the swimming pool. There are no restrictions here.
Regarding board and computer games, playing for money is unworthy of a priest. Cards and other gambling games are also prohibited as those that awaken passions in a person. Computer games are also different. There are those where cruelty is promoted and blood is shed. And there are popular games of “tanks” with equipment from the Great Patriotic War or “ships”, which are quite harmless. There are a lot of interesting strategies - all kinds of empires, civilizations. They provide an opportunity to learn a foreign language and develop thinking.
I am only for it if the priest is aware of Internet games and can talk about it with the young people who come to his church, explain what is good and what is not. It is very important that in the eyes of young parishioners the priest does not look like some kind of dinosaur of the prehistoric era, who does not understand the realities of modern life at all, but is an educated person who understands what he is talking about.
The same applies to the priest’s access to the Internet. Today on social networks we see a lot of not just priests, but also monks, hieromonks, archimandrites, bishops and metropolitans. They actively carry out their mission of preaching about Christ via the Internet. Forums are very important where priests can find out the opinions of others on certain current contemporary issues and different points of view.
Today, a significant part of a priest’s public ministry takes place on the Internet. Asking a priest a question on the Internet is much easier than devoting time to this in real life by coming to the temple and waiting until he has free time.
A common image of a priest’s family in the minds of many believers is a wife in long gray clothes reaching to her toes and a bunch of children. It is wrong to believe that a priest should have many children, or to condemn him for having few children or being childless. In this way we are like the Jews who condemned the parents of the holy prophet John the Baptist and other righteous people for being childless. Everything happens in our lives according to the will of God.
Often the Lord tests people's faith and gives them children at a later age. A priest's family cannot, for example, as some people think, give birth to a child every year. Without even thinking about abortion, the priest and his wife take care of their health and know the physical strength of their body.
The style of the priest and his family in everyday life can also be quite modern and at the same time remain modest. For example, wearing a long beard is not at all necessary. This is a form of missionary preaching: Orthodox does not mean an ancient dinosaur.
