Lenten and fasting. A page from the history of church discipline

From the very beginning of its historical existence, the Christian Church knew fasting. The New Testament Church learned fasting from the Old Testament. But the external practice of fasting and judgments about its internal meaning in the Christian Church have changed significantly in comparison with the Old Testament. The Jew understood fasting in the sense of complete abstinence from food from morning to evening, and this fast was considered primarily as a sacrifice. This is how the Jewish Talmud judges fasting, which puts the following prayer into the mouth of the fasting person: “Behold, God, I fast, my flesh becomes weak, my fat disappears. Receive it as if it were burned before You on the altar.” Fasting, complete abstinence from food, reduces the intensity of the physical side of a person, and the Jew views fasting as some kind of replacement, some kind of compensation for human sacrifice. It is not the whole person who is sacrificed, but only, as it were, a part of him, because his physical life is reduced. But we can say that the Jew, in addition to these fasts, spent his entire life in a special kind of fasting. After all, a Jew was forever prohibited from certain types of food, certain specific types of food. The Jew talked about this kind of fasting as follows. All people eat this and that, but I don’t eat it. Why? Because I am a Jew. When everyone eats, and I don’t eat, I remember that I am a Jew, I remember the law, I remember God, and from this I derive considerable benefit for myself. From the very beginning, the Christian Church adopted the first form of Jewish fasting, that is, complete abstinence from food. Already the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” speaks of fasting on Wednesday and Friday. But personal, non-church fasts were very widespread in the Church. Hermas fasted when he wanted to receive revelations (Vis. II,2,1; III,1,2; III,10,6–7). Fasting accompanied repentance. This was one of the means of exomologesis, as penitential feats were called in the ancient Church (Tertullian. repentance. Chapter 9 of the work. M., 1994. - Ed. Note .. But the ancient Church knew fasting, not lenten food. To characterize the ancient church judgments about fasting, the following passage from “Shepherd Hermas. Observe fasting “in this way: first of all, abstain from every evil word and evil lust, and cleanse your heart from all the vanities of this world. If you keep this, the fast will be righteous. Do this: having completed the above, on the day on which you fast, eat nothing except bread and water: and, having calculated the expenses that you would make on this day for food, following the example of other days, set aside what is left of this day and give it to the widow, orphan or poor; In this way you will humble your soul and the one who receives from you will satisfy his soul and pray to the Lord for you. If you fast as I commanded you, then your sacrifice will be pleasing to the Lord, and this fast will be written, and the deed done in this way will be wonderful, joyful and pleasing to the Lord. If you observe this with your children and with all your household, you will be blessed” (Similar V:3) 1 . Here we see a characteristic feature of the ancient Christian view of the meaning of fasting: being almost complete abstinence from food, it quite naturally turns into charity, because the fasting person turned the savings that were obtained from complete abstinence into the cause of charity and helping his neighbor. But it is quite clear that fasting in the form of complete abstinence from food could not be long. And the Church, one might say, knew strict fasts, but did not know long fasts. The Church knew fasting, but did not know fasting. In the second half of the 2nd century, Montanism, a rigoristic movement based on a new revelation, the revelation of the Paraclete through Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla, made decisive reforms in disciplinary practice. The teaching of Christ and the apostles seemed to the Montanists to be an incomplete stage of revelation. Truth reaches its full development only in the teachings of the Montanists. New revelation brings with it new discipline. Tertullian, who deviated into Montanism, insists that the Paraclete is only the founder of a new discipline (De virg. vel. Cap.1). The disciplinary reform of Montanism also affected the form of posts. Between the Montanists and the “psychics,” as the Montanists called members of the Church, there was a debate about fasting, among other things. Very few monuments of anti-montanist polemics have survived, but recently these monuments have been multiplying. Analyzing some of the monuments of ancient church writing, we find in them traces of other works that have not survived to this day. We learn about the controversy regarding fasting from Tertullian’s treatise “De jejuniis”. When reading the first two chapters of this treatise, one gets the impression that here Tertullian is concisely expounding some other person’s work, that he is abstracting the work of his opponent, which served as the reason for Tertullian to present the doctrine of fasting from the point of view of Montanism. Critics of ancient church literature admit that Tertullian in “De jejuniis” refutes precisely a certain work directed against Montanistic fasts. This view was previously expressed by Morcelli and Bonwetsch, and later developed by Ernst Rolfs in the work “Urkunden aus dem antimontanistischen Kampf des Abendlandes” 2. According to Rohlfs, there are traces in Tertullian's De jejuniis that Tertullian [means] in this case one specific work 3 . But about the work that Tertullian has in mind, very little information can be gleaned from De jejuniis. In chapters 1 and 2, Tertullian, one might think, conveys all or almost all the content of the anti-Montanist monument, perhaps in its sequence, but Tertullian in this case has almost no literal excerpts from this monument, which is why one can only judge the original speculatively. Rohlfs carefully examines 4 where Tertullian’s rendering of the anti-montanist monument can be assumed to be any close to the original, and then tries to restore even its text itself, although he does this with great reservations, even expressing doubt as to whether his work deserves the name of reconstruction. Whoever, says Rolfs, does not want to recognize what I give as an experience of reconstruction, can consider what is offered as a visual combination of the results obtained so far, which presents to the eyes what, at best, we still know about the literal side of the work refuted by Tertullian 5 . Thus, in Tertullian’s treatise “De jejuniis” we have two views on fasting – Montanistic and ecclesiastical. The innovations of the Montanists regarding fasting were of two kinds. Firstly, the Montanists legalized new posts, new in time; secondly, they are new in nature - dry eating, which is why it was possible to establish a two-week fast. He is an opponent of Tertullian and writes against this kind of fasting. Montanists, he writes, continue fasting and standing until the evening. In addition, they observe dry eating (ξηροφαγίας), eating dry food without any meat and without any seasoning, without any grape fruits, so as not to eat or drink anything wine, they refrain from washing, which corresponds to dry eating. But holidays and other times are established by the scriptures and traditions of our ancestors. Nothing should be added beyond what is observed, since innovations are not allowed. They must be considered heresy if they are human superstition, or they are false prophecy if they are the fruit of a new spiritual revelation. Even God does not impose duties. Law and Prophets before John. Let those who proclaim otherwise be anathema, following either the spirit of the devil or the man Antichrist. As for fasting, God has designated special days. Thus, in the book of Leviticus, the Lord indicated to Moses the tenth day of the seventh month as the day of reconciliation: “It will be a holy day for you, and purify your souls, ... and every soul that is not purified on that day will be consumed from among his people” (see Lev. 23:27–29). The Gospel indicates the days on which the Bridegroom was taken away as the only legal days for Christian fasting. However, one should fast separately at will, and not at the order of a new discipline, for the special circumstances and occasions of each individual person. The apostles looked the same way. They did not impose any special yoke on certain or generally obligatory posts. By establishing the custom of dry eating, the Montanists are close to the pagan superstition, according to which Apis, Isis and the Great Mother are served by abstinence from certain types of food. But free faith in Christ does not require abstinence from certain types of food according to the Jewish law. This faith once and forever received permission for meat from the apostles. The Apostle condemns those who prevent people from getting married and who order them to abstain from foods created by God. Montanists are apostates from the faith predicted by the apostle, heeding the false spirits of the world, deceiving teachings, having a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:1-3). They are like the Galatians - “observe the days and months... and years” (Gal.4:10). The apostle abolishes Jewish ceremonies and legal celebrations, confirming the end of the Old Testament with the burial of Christ and establishing the New Testament. If there is a New Testament in Christ, then there must be new festivals. The Apostle completely destroyed all dedication of time - and days, and months, and years. Isaiah declared: “This is not the fast the Lord has chosen,” that is, not abstinence from food, but deeds of justice (Is. 58:6). The Lord himself in the Gospel briefly said about everything related to food: “a person is not defiled by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out” (Mark 7:15). He Himself ate and drank to the point that He was even called a man who loved to eat and drink (Matthew 11:19). The apostle also teaches: “Food does not bring us closer to God,” and we do not abound if we eat, and we do not lack anything if we do not eat (1 Cor. 8:8). Therefore, the main thing is that I believe with all my heart, love God and my neighbor as myself. The whole law and the prophets are in these two commandments, and not in the emptiness of my entrails and my stomach. These are the objections to Montanist practice that can be drawn from the first two chapters of Tertullian's treatise De jejuniis. The question remains, of course, whether Tertullian fully presented his opponent's objections. One thing is certain: this opponent objected to the establishment of generally obligatory long fasts and rejected the dry eating practiced among the Montanists as a form of fasting. Tertullian’s opponent also objected to the custom of continuing “standings,” that is, the same fasts, until the evening. In his opinion, the “standing” should end at the ninth hour. It can be assumed that the innovation of the Montanists regarding fasting caused protest against itself because this innovation was based on a new revelation of the Paraclete. Having condemned this revelation at the Councils in Asia Minor, the Church also rejected everything that was a consequence of this new revelation. Church writers stood in opposition to everything Montanistic. In his treatise, Tertullian sharply criticizes the views of his opponent and analyzes his argument in detail. “De jejuniis” was written by Tertullian very shortly after “De monogamia” (“On Monogamy”), because at first Tertullian recalled precisely this work of his. It would be surprising, writes Tertullian, if psychics were incontinent only in marriage and at the same time were abstinent in food. Lust is always closely connected with gluttony. It is not in vain that pudenda 6 are suspended from the belly. Psychics reproach the Montanists for heresy for their fasts. Not because Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla preach another god, or deny Jesus Christ, or pervert any other rule of faith or hope, but because, obviously, they teach to fast more often than to marry, Tertullian venomously remarks (De jej. Cap.1). Tertullian's first goal is to prove the high dignity of fasting. This dignity of fasting is revealed already on the first pages of the Bible. Adam received a commandment from God not to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he ate and died (De jej. Cap.3). With this example, Tertullian wants to prove that abstinence from certain types of food can be established. True, after the flood, God allowed us to eat everything except meat with blood (Gen. 9:4), but God did this because he did not want to give any commandment to someone who could not fulfill such an easy commandment as abstaining from the fruits of one tree. In addition, God wanted to make man's continence free, so that by free continence he could atone for the guilt of his previous intemperance (De jej. Cap.4). The Lord also legalized abstinence from certain types of food for His chosen people. When the Lord led His chosen people to a land flowing with milk and honey, He fed them in the desert with only manna, the bread of Angels, that is, dry eating, which the Jews, as devoted to the earth more than Heaven, did not like (De jej. Cap.5). Tertullian then turns to the general consciousness. Intemperance always disposes a person to sensuality and rough pleasures (cap. 6), removes people from God; intemperate people forget God, as can be seen from the Holy Scriptures (Deut. 8:12–14, 32:15). On the contrary, fasting brings a person closer to God, as the examples of Moses and Elijah show. The Eternal God Himself lives without food. During fasting, a person becomes like God. Numerous examples from the Old Testament show that fasting reconciles a person with God. Thus, Samuel, at a meeting in Mizpah, reconciled the people of Israel with God precisely through fasting (1 Samuel 7:6). God spared Nineveh for her repentance, coupled with three days of fasting. Ahab, who sinned, fasted, took advantage of the same remedy, and God had mercy on him and postponed His punishment (1 Kings 21). Hannah, Elkanah's wife, begged God for a son by fasting. God revealed to Daniel the dream of the king of Babylon after he and his companions had fasted for three days. Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared if they had fasted (De jej. Cap.7). We also find examples of fasting in the New Testament. On the threshold of the Gospel is Anna the prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, who recognized Christ as a reward for monogamy and fasting. After baptism, Christ himself fasted in the desert, although he could have made bread for himself from stones. Likewise, the Apostle Paul speaks of his exploits and frequent fasts (De jej. Cap.8). With all these examples, Tertullian proves the necessity and benefit of fasting in general. This part of his treatise aims precisely to arouse respect for fasting and thereby lay the foundation for the adoption of new fasts and new types of fasting. In chapter 9 of “De jejuniis” Tertullian justifies, in particular, dry eating - the type of fasting that his opponents denied. Tertullian refers to Daniel and other young men who ate plant foods, but were more beautiful than others and highest in spiritual gifts. During his flight, the Angel fed the Prophet Elijah only with bread and water, and not with bread and meat, as the crows fed him. This is an example of the fact that in times of persecution and any circumstances in general one should live by dry eating. David expressed his repentance by eating such dry and hard bread as ashes, and mixing his drink with tears (Ps. 101:10). Samuel abstained from wine. The Lord also commanded abstinence from wine to the priests through Aaron (Lev.10:9). If the Apostle Paul allows Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23) to drink wine due to illness, then it means that abstinence when there is no need for wine is worthy before God. Tertullian further justifies long “standings” (stationes), that is, one-day fasts lasting until late in the evening, which, according to his opponent, should end at the ninth hour. Tertullian asks: where should we derive the rule that “standings” should be interrupted at the ninth hour? If we refer to the example of the Apostle Peter (Acts 3:1), then it is not known whether he prayed only once, ending his prayer at the ninth hour. No, we see Peter praying even at the sixth hour (Acts 10:9). At the third hour the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles (Acts 2:15). Perhaps Peter prayed three times. You need to set an hour for the end of the “stands”. Such an hour may be the hour of the Lord's death. One must fast and pray until the time when, after the darkness, the light shines again. Fasting until evening, we wait until Joseph gave the body of the Lord to burial. Tertullian confirms the custom of continuing to “stand” until late in the evening with some Old Testament examples (Moses during the battle with the Amalekites, Joshua during the battle with the Amorites, Daniel - Dan.9:21), from which one can see that the Lord paid attention to prolonged prayer (De jej. Cap.10). Thus, not only the antiquity of fasting, dry eating and prolonged “standing” has been proven, but also their benefits. What has always been is not new. What is useful is not in vain (De jej. Cap.11). In addition, Tertullian points out the particular benefit of harsh fasts for his time, the time of persecution. With abstinence and fasting, a Christian will learn to endure all kinds of hardships, and therefore will go into battle with confidence. His flesh will not provide material for torment. She, who fasted often, saw death up close. A dried body will not be sensitive to iron claws. Tertullian caricatures the “psychic” martyr Pristine, accustomed to intemperance, who, after the slightest torture, could not answer which God he professed, because he only had hiccups and belching (De jej. Cap.12). If the Montanists introduce new fasts, they do nothing that would contradict church practice. Members of the Church do not fast only on those days when the Bridegroom was taken away. True, they do this of their own free will, and not by order. But why not legitimize the posts? Should human desire really be given more scope than Divine power! You need to be free from the world, not from God. After all, in the Church, sometimes bishops establish general posts. In the East there are fasts during Councils; It is good to fast in similar cases in the West, because it is good and pleasant for the brethren to live together (De jej. Cap.13). It is impossible to speak of the Montanists as if they, like the Galatians (Gal. 4:10), “observe days, months... and years.” After all, the Church also has some specific days for fasting and celebrations: Easter and after it 50 days of celebration, “standings” and fasts on the 4th and 6th days of the week, etc. (De jej. Cap.14). The words of the Apostle Paul, condemning those who prohibit certain types of food (1 Tim. 4:3), cannot apply to Montanists. This condemnation applies only to those who command constant abstinence for destruction and for neglecting the works of the Creator; These are Marcion, Tatian, the Pythagoreans and others. The Montanists do not have such a food prohibition. They eat dry food for two weeks a year, and then with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays - and this is done for the sake of the Lord. Therefore, it is impossible to accuse them of heresy, just as the Apostle Paul says that “for the sake of food” there is no need to destroy “the works of God” (Rom. 14:20). Although the apostle allowed us to eat “everything that is sold in the market,” except for things sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 10:25, 28), he did not believe in the food of the Kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17). The Lord Jesus Christ was not indifferent to food. Why interpret in favor of your sensuality what He sometimes ate and drank! After all, He who fasted was the one who proclaimed bliss not to the well-fed, but to the hungry and thirsty. Isaiah did not say that God does not need fasting. He only indicated which fast God does not need (Is. 58:6). God desires acts of justice, but not without sacrifice, and such a sacrifice is a soul purified by fasting. Pagans and Jews know the value of fasting. Dry eating is compared with fasts in honor of Isis and Cybele, but from this similarity of dry eating with pagan fasts, its Divine institution is visible, because the devil always imitates Divine institutions. From the truth comes a lie. Superstition is formed from religion. A pagan fasts for the sake of an idol - shouldn’t a Christian fast for the sake of God! Tertullian then follows with very harsh expressions addressed to psychics. “You have made a god out of your belly, a church out of your lungs, an altar out of your stomach. Your priest is the cook, your holy spirit is the steam from the food; your spiritual gifts are seasonings; your prophecy is hiccups after gluttony! If we tell the truth, then you are an old man, because you are so busy eating” (De jej. Cap.16-17). Tertullian extends the same harsh judgment to the entire life of psychics, in particular to their agapes, which end in fornication. Psychics are people without spirit; they have only body and soul; they are homines solius animae et carnis 7 . All they can do is constantly preach: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die” (1 Cor. 15:32), while the Montanists do not hesitate to openly command: let us fast, brothers and sisters, so as not to die suddenly tomorrow. We have outlined the thoughts and arguments of the disputing parties. But the question is, who in this case is Tertullian’s opponent, against whom is he writing his treatise? From a historical point of view, it is important to establish which movement the representative protested against the Montanist fasts. The previously mentioned Rohlfs, however, takes upon himself a more daring task - to name a certain person as the author of the work whose existence he proves and which, in his opinion, caused Tertullian's polemical response. After a series of witty comparisons of the supposed monument, partly with the “Philosophumena” of Hippolytus of Rome, partly with the edict of Callistus, which has recently become widely known, Rolfs comes to the conclusion that the author of the monument was the Roman Bishop Callistus 8. The evidence presented by Rohlfs in any case convinces that the author of the alleged work directed against Montanistic fasts was a representative of that lenient direction in matters of discipline, headed by the Roman Bishop Callistus. The time of Callistus's episcopate was marked by the so-called schism of Hippolytus. Hippolytus became the head of a special community, which he considered alone to be the true Church, and he called the community of Callistus a school and proposed calling its members not Christians, but Callistians (Philos. IX, 12). Tertullian’s “De jejuniis” could hardly have been directed directly against the community of Hippolytus and, in general, that moderately strict movement at the head of which St. Hippolytus stood in Rome. In the community of Hippolytus, based on his message in the Philosophumena, one can assume fairly strict discipline and relatively high morals. The chapter “Philosophumen” (IX.12) dedicated to Callistus contains a strict condemnation of his leniency in matters of church discipline, especially in relation to the marriage issue and carnal sins. Hippolytus testifies that those excommunicated by him from his community were willingly accepted in the community of Callistus (Philos. IX, 12) 9 . Consequently, in the community of Hippolytus the discipline was stricter than in Callistus. Therefore, it is hardly possible to attribute to the Church of Hippolytus that sharp depiction of the enemy’s depravity, which we have in chapters 12 and 17 of “De jejuniis”. Thus, chapters 1 and 2 of “De jejuniis” represent a presentation of the thoughts of an author who belonged to the like-minded people of the Roman Bishop Callistus, unless the author of the anti-montanist work was Callistus himself. But in this case, on the issue of fasting, one must think that the adherents of Hippolytus were no different from the like-minded people of Callistus. This is quite understandable, since the discipline of Montanism was the establishment of its exalted prophets. Some church historians are inclined to regard Hippolytus himself as a semi-montanist, but in vain. Hippolytus was undoubtedly an opponent of the “new prophecy.” He wrote a special essay on the issue of spiritual gifts, the title of which can be read on the chair of his monument (a photograph from the monument is available in the Moscow Historical Museum). This work has not survived, but it is assumed that Hippolytus’s views were reflected in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, where a negative assessment of Montanistic prophecy is given. At St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in his work against heresies is a significant treatise against Montanistic prophecy (Heresy.48. Ch.1-15) 10. According to some scientists, this is based on the work of either Hippolytus himself or his like-minded person. In the Philosophumena, Hippolytus condemns the discipline of the Montanists regarding fasting. Listing the deviations of the Montanists, Hippolytus says: “They introduce new fasts and holidays and dry eating (ξηροφαγίας), saying that they were taught by women,” that is, Maximilla and Priscilla (Philos. VIII,19) 11. Elsewhere, the new Montanist posts of St. Hippolytus calls them strange, paradoxical (Philos. X,25) 12. It can also be added here that Epiphanius of Cyprus refers to the Montanists in the words of the apostle about those who move away from brushes (Heresy.48. Chapter 8) 13 . Consequently, Hippolytus agreed with Callistus in condemning the Montanists for new fasts and new types of fasts, for dry eating. But, of course, Hippolytus had less internal motivation to denounce Montanistic fasts. The multiplication of fasts spoke only of the moral strictness of Montanism, but not of its extreme rigorism. Hippolytus himself had strict moral views, and one might think that he did not accept Montanist fasts mainly on theoretical and principled grounds, precisely because the Montanist fasts were the institution of false prophets. No wonder in Philos. VIII.19 Hippolytus immediately after condemning the Montanist fasts adds that the Montanists were taught these fasts by their prophetesses. Thus, on the basis of Tertullian’s treatise “De jejuniis”, one can write a rather interesting page in the history of the Church’s fasts. In our current Typikon, very few fasts are established in the literal sense of the word, that is, in the sense of complete abstinence from food. According to the interpretation of our modern liturgist Prof. M.N. Skaballanovich, already in the very name “Typikon” it is expressed that it depicts only a high ideal of worship (of course, and some other aspects of church life), which with its beauty would evoke an always involuntary desire for its implementation, to the full, perhaps, not always possible, like the implementation of any ideal 14. There are very few who implement the ideal of the Typikon in relation to fasting, and it can be said that the church life of our time almost completely does not know fasting in the form in which only the Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries knew it. As if in exchange for this, the Typikon and church life itself have many times in the year, sometimes quite long, when it is indicated to eat fasting, and there are up to four degrees of this fasting: dry eating, with oil and wine, fish, empty meat. The “fasting life” of the monks also took the form of constant abstinence from warm-blooded meat, the form of fasting. The ancient Church did not know this form of fasting. Then, over time, the concept of fasting was, so to speak, replaced by the concept of fasting. Tertullian's treatise De jejuniis marks the first step towards changing the form of fasting. But it is remarkable that two-week dry eating initially appeared among the Montanist sectarians, and it is even more remarkable that church writers protest both against the new fasts and against their new form, and representatives of different directions protest unanimously - the Roman Bishop Callistus and St. Hippolytus of Rome, who held completely different views on other issues of church discipline. Tertullian sometimes objects to his church opponent exactly the same thing that church people now say in defense of fasting against non-church people. The introduction of Lenten life into everyday life was condemned by Western church writers at the beginning of the 3rd century. When judging this fact, one should not lose sight of the fact that fasting was introduced by the Montanists, against whom church writers considered it their duty to polemicize; they needed to generally discredit the new prophecy and all its institutions. Church writers did not touch upon the issue of fasting in detachment from the broader issue - about new revelation in general. The casual connection between Lenten and the revelation of the Paraclete was the reason for the negative attitude of Western church writers towards it. A study concerning the history of the church practice of fasting and abstinence from fasting. Tertullian's treatise ( after 220) “De jejuniis” (On Fasting) was written after Tertullian, having broken away from Orthodoxy, joined the Montanist sect, characterized by exalted charisma and extreme rigorism. Scriptures of the Apostolic Men. St. Petersburg, 1895 (rep. edition, Riga, 1994). P.207. – Approx. ed. Rolfs. Leipzig, 1895. S.5–49. What is worth being ashamed of (lat.). – Approx. ed. People from one soul and body (lat.). – Approx. ed. E. Rolfs. Urkunden aus dem antimontanistischen Kampfe. S.44–48. PG. T.16. Pars 3. Col.3386B. Creations of St. Epiphany of Cyprus. Part 2. M., 1864. (Creations of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy. T.44.) PG. T.16. Pars 3. Col.3367A. Creations of St. Epiphany of Cyprus. Part 2. P.315. M.N. Skaballanovich. Explanatory Typikon. Issue 2. Kiev, 1913. P.2. You might be interested in: