О Тимофее Александрийском

Timothy of Alexandria began successful church activity under Emperor Valens, in 372. Replacing his brother Peter, who was exiled by Emperor Valens for the Nicene faith, Timothy became the 24th Archbishop of Alexandria 260 and was a great defender of consubstantiality. This blessed father was present at the Second Ecumenical Council, held in 381, and preached the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Having rested in the Lord in the seventh year after the Second Ecumenical Council, he left Theophilus of Alexandria as his successor. St. Timothy wrote many lives of remarkable ascetics (let us note the life of Abba Apollos) 261, and in addition, he compiled these rules in the form of question-answers. These rules are indirectly approved by the rules of the IV Universal. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and directly - by rule VI Omni. 2 and through this statement in some way received the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. They are found in the 2nd volume of “Pandect” and in the 1st volume of “Synodikon”, p. 352. Timothy, His Holiness Archbishop of Alexandria, questions and answers, or 18 rules with interpretations Question 1. If a catechumen child of about seven years old or an adult happens to be somewhere during an offering and, out of ignorance, receives communion, then what should be done with him? He must be enlightened by baptism, for he is called by God. This divine father was asked what to do if a child or an adult, while still a catechumen, finds himself in church during the celebration of the liturgy and, out of ignorance, and not out of insolence, receives communion, not knowing that catechumens cannot receive communion before baptism. To this question he answers that such a person needs to be baptized, because he is called to this by God Himself. Indeed, the fact that neither the Christians in the church nor the priest who communed him prevented him from receiving communion (and perhaps they did not then understand that he was a catechumen, although they knew him before) is a Divine calling. See also note. 1 to I Universal. 2. Question 2. If a possessed person is a catechumen and either he himself wants to accept holy baptism or his relatives want this, then should he be baptized or not, especially if he is close to death? If a possessed person is not cleansed of the unclean spirit, then he cannot accept holy baptism, but upon death he is baptized. Although every catechumen who has not received baptism is unclean, because the impurity of ancestral sin is inside him, and the evil spirit nests in his heart and secretly acts in the depths of the soul, pushing a person to sin, 262 but first of all, that unbaptized catechumen who is clearly possessed by a demon is considered unclean. It is obvious that by his willful sins he allowed the demon to act so openly and torment him. Therefore St. Timothy, when asked whether it is possible to baptize someone who is clearly demonized, answered that it is impossible until he is cleansed, that is, freed from obvious demonic influence. Firstly, because the person himself, through his arbitrary sins, gave the demon a reason to take possession of him, and secondly, because during baptism an attack of demoniacal possession may occur and then the possessed person, being beside himself, will not be able to intelligently answer the questions asked at baptism, and therefore will not feel the grace and power of the sacrament 263. However, says St. Timothy, if such a person is near death, he must be baptized so that he does not leave this life without the seal of divine baptism and thereby lose the Kingdom of Heaven. Read also the Apostle. 79. Question 3. If one of the faithful is possessed by a demon, should he partake of the Holy Mysteries or not? If he does not divulge about the sacrament or blaspheme in any other way, then let him receive communion, but not every day; only on Sundays is enough for him. To the question whether a demoniac should partake of the Divine Mysteries, the saint answers in this rule that he can receive communion, but not every day 264, but only on Sundays, according to Aristinus and Armenopoulus (Brief summary of the rules. Section 5, tit. 2), or, according to others, at a time when he is not possessed 265, and provided that, being of sound mind, he is not blasphemes the Divine Mysteries and does not disclose them, that is, for example, he does not claim that this is ordinary bread and wine, not believing that this is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Consequently, here the saint speaks of such a demoniac who is under the influence of a demon not constantly, but sometimes, at separate intervals of time, as Balsamon and Zonara say in their interpretation of the rule of the Apostle. 79 (read it). Question 4. If one of the catechumens loses his mind due to illness and is unable to pronounce the confession of faith himself, and his relatives ask him to receive holy baptism while he is alive, should he receive it or not? He must receive it if he is not tempted by the unclean spirit. The saint was asked whether he should baptize a catechumen who had become so ill that he had gone mad due to the disease (as a rule, this happens to people suffering from the plague) and could not answer ordinary questions himself during baptism. His relatives, seeing him in this state, ask him to be baptized, because although due to his illness he cannot confess his faith and ask for baptism, the very fact that he had previously become a catechumen shows that he voluntarily, with love, wants to accept the Christian faith and baptism. And besides, before his illness, he asked for baptism, but for some reason he postponed it, as Zonara says in the interpretation of Carthage. 52. However, if he has gone mad under the influence of a demon, he should not be baptized until he is cleansed, as we said before. Read also the Apostle. 79 and Neokesar. 12. Question 5. If a wife spends the night with her husband, or a husband with his wife, and a divine service is being celebrated, should they receive communion or not? It should not, since the apostle calls: Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, for exercise in prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance (1 Cor. 7:5). To the one who asked whether the spouses should receive the Divine Mysteries at the Liturgy celebrated in the morning, if they had just entered into carnal communion the previous night, the saint in this rule answers that they cannot receive communion 266 . He cites as evidence the saying of the Apostle, who commands spouses not to deprive each other of carnal communication, unless with the consent of both parties in the event that there is a sacred liturgy, on Saturday and Sunday and in general on all holidays, for the sake of communion. This is exactly how it is in the 13th rule of the same Timothy and in the 3rd rule of St. Dionysius (read them) interprets words for exercise in prayer. And then they can again, due to the uncontrollability of their desire, enter into communication so that Satan does not tempt them, urging them to fornication and adultery with other people's wives and husbands. Question 6. If a catechumen woman wrote down her name in order to receive enlightenment, and on the day of baptism the usual thing happens to her among women, then should she be baptized on that day or postponed, and for how long should she be postponed? Need to set aside until clear. The catechumens of men and women preparing to be baptized were recorded in advance by church stewards, after which these catechumens were called enlightened and chosen (see I Ecumenical 14). From that time on, they prepared for holy baptism with greater love and feat than during the rest of the time of the announcement. So, St. Timothy in this rule says that if a catechumen woman registers and prepares for baptism, but on the day when she is to be baptized, she begins to experience the usual for women, then she should not accept baptism, but wait until she is cleansed. See also Dionysius Alexander. 2. Question 7. If a wife notices something that is usual for women, should she begin the Holy Mysteries that day or not? It shouldn't until it's cleansed. Similar to the previous one, this rule prohibits a woman from partaking of the Divine Mysteries on those days when she is usual for women. She can receive communion only when she is cleansed. See also Dionysius Alexander. 2. Question 8. If a wife gives birth on Easter, should she fast and not drink wine or is she exempt from fasting and the prohibition of drinking wine for the sake of giving birth? Fasting is established to pacify the body, but if the body is in humility and weakness, then let it take food and drink as it wishes and as it can bear. They asked this father whether a woman who gave birth on the Great Pentecost before Easter, according to the interpretation of Balsamon and Blastar 267, is allowed to weaken her fast 268 and drink wine. He answers that it is allowed because fasting is observed in order to humble and keep the body in check, and if the body is already pacified and weak, then one should consume in sufficient quantities that food and drink that can support it in weakness and strengthen it. See also Apost. 69. Question 9: Should a clergyman pray in the presence of Arians or other heretics? Or does it not harm him at all if he performs his prayer or offering? During the Divine Liturgy, the deacon, before the time of kissing, exclaims: “You who are not acceptable to fellowship, depart.” So, they should not attend unless they promise to repent and abandon heresy. They asked this father whether a priest should perform a bloodless ritual in the presence of Arians and heretics in general. He replies that during the sacred rite the deacon utters an exclamation commanding the catechumens to leave the church: “Catechumens, go out” (this is what the words of the rule “not acceptable for communication, go out”) mean. So, if during the Divine Liturgy the catechumens are not allowed to remain in church, then what can we say about heretics? The only exception is if they promise to repent and leave their heresy (but even then they should not stand in the church, but outside along with the catechumens). And if they do not promise this, then they are not allowed to stand with the catechumens, but they must be expelled (according to Balsamon). Question 10. If someone is sick and completely exhausted from a severe illness, and Holy Easter is approaching, is it obligatory for him to fast or, due to his severe exhaustion, does the clergyman have the right to allow him to consume what he can, or even oil and wine? The patient should be allowed to eat and drink according to what he can bear. For when one is completely exhausted, it is justifiable to consume oil. They asked this divine father whether it is obligatory for a person who is seriously ill and severely exhausted by a long illness to fast on Lent before Easter 269, abstaining from wine and oil along with healthy people, or whether it is permissible for him to eat oil and drink wine due to severe illness 270. St. Timothy replies that such a person should be allowed to consume as much food and drink as is necessary to support his infirmity, as determined by a God-fearing physician. After all, eating oil for someone who is completely exhausted by illness is justified. Question 11. If someone calls a clergyman to perform a marriage, and he hears that it is an illegal marriage or incest, for example, the one intending to marry is the sister of a deceased wife, then should the clergyman go or make an offering? Say decisively: if the clergyman hears about the illegality of marriage and if the marriage is really illegal, then the clergyman should not participate in the sins of others. The saint was asked: if a priest is called to perform the sacrament of marriage, and then he finds out that this marriage is illegal (for example, a man is going to marry his aunt or the sister of his deceased wife, in other words, he wants to take two sisters or some other relative), then should the priest marry them or serve the liturgy 271? In this canon, the saint answers that if a priest learns about the illegality of marriage, then he should neither perform the sacrament of marriage, nor serve the liturgy, and therefore, take part in the sins of others, that is, an unlawful marriage, and also be subject to penances imposed on the priest who performed such a marriage 272. Question 12. If a layman, defiled in a dream, asks a clergyman about this, should he allow him to receive communion or not? If there was lust for a woman, then he should not; if Satan tempts him in order to deprive him of communion of the Divine Mysteries under this pretext, then he must take communion. For otherwise the tempter will not stop attacking him at the time when he should receive communion. They asked this father whether a layman should receive communion on the day when he had an expiration in a dream. To this he responds in this rule that if such a thing happened because of lust for a woman or memories of her, then he cannot receive communion, since the passionate memory that caused the outflow has desecrated his mind. If there was no such desire or memory, and Satan only out of envy brought temptation upon him in order to prevent him from being sanctified by the Divine Sacraments, then he must receive communion. After all, if he does not receive communion, then Satan will not cease to tempt him and thereby hinder him when he is preparing to receive communion 273 . Read also Dionysius Alexander. 4. Question 13. On what days of the week should abstinence from intercourse be imposed on those marrying each other and on what days should they have the right to do so? What I said before, I say now. The Apostle commands: Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, for exercise in prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance (see 1 Cor. 7:5). And on Saturday and Sunday it is necessary to abstain, because on these days a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord. They asked the saint on what days of the week spouses should not enter into carnal intercourse. He gives the answer in the present rule, citing as evidence the words of Paul to the spouses: do not deprive each other of carnal communication and only with the consent of both parties, abstain for a while in order to remain in prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. And explaining what time and what prayer Paul has in mind when he speaks of marital abstinence, the saint points out that this is Saturday and Sunday (and in general every holiday). On these days, they should not have entered into carnal communication, because, as a rule, it was on these days that a spiritual sacrifice was performed, that is, the sacred liturgy, and the spouses should have prepared for the communion of the Divine Sacraments 274. See also Dionysius Alexander. 3. Question 14. If someone, being beside himself, kills himself or hangs himself, should there be an offering for him or not? The clergyman must judge whether such a person was really out of his mind when he did this, because often the relatives of the victim, wanting to ensure that offerings and prayers are made for him, lie and say that he was out of his mind. But a person doing this either out of human resentment, or for some other reason out of cowardice, and it is not appropriate to make offerings for this, because he is a suicide. Therefore, the clergyman must certainly investigate the matter with all care so as not to be condemned. They asked this divine father whether the liturgy and memorial service should be celebrated for that person who killed himself: either threw himself from a height, or drowned himself, or hanged himself, or somehow killed himself, not being in his right mind due to demonic influence or illness. In the present rule, he answers that a priest or any other cleric who is asked to remember such a person must carefully and accurately find out whether he really killed himself because he lost his mind. After all, often the relatives and friends of such a person, wanting the priests to perform a funeral service for him and perform a memorial service, and also serve a liturgy for the forgiveness of his sins, tell a lie, claiming that the person has lost his mind and therefore killed himself. However, sometimes a person commits suicide due to loss or annoyance from people, or from cowardice and immoderate sadness, or for some other reason, but voluntarily and being of sound mind. A liturgy or memorial service cannot be performed for such a person, because he is a suicide 275. Question 15. If someone’s wife is possessed by an evil spirit so much that she even wears shackles, and her husband says: “I cannot abstain and want to take another wife,” should he take another or not? This is adultery, and I do not know and do not find how to answer this. They asked the saint: if someone’s wife is so furious that she has to be tied with iron chains (for example, so that she does not run away or kill herself or someone else), and her husband, being unable to maintain chastity and abstain from carnal intercourse, wants to take another wife (because he cannot have carnal relations with his wife, who is in such a state), then should he take another wife or not? In this rule, St. Timothy replies that he has no answer to this question, because if such a man marries another, then adultery will be combined with this marriage, because he did not let his first wife go because of fornication, whereas the Lord said: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery 276 277. See also Apost. 48 and 79. In addition, the Eclogue of the laws of the emperors Leo and Constantine (Greco-Roman law. Book 2, tit. 13. p. 107) orders them not to separate, saying this: “If it happens that one of them after marriage falls under the power of a demon, then for this reason they should not divorce.” So, here Lev himself refutes his subsequent novella. See note. to the chapter on engagement. Question 16. If someone fasts for the sake of receiving the Holy Mysteries and, while rinsing his mouth or washing in a bathhouse, accidentally takes a sip of water, should he take communion? Yes. Because Satan, having found a way to prevent him from taking communion, will do this more often. The saint was asked whether one should receive communion if, while fasting and preparing for communion, he accidentally takes a sip of water while rinsing his mouth or washing in a bathhouse 278. In the present rule, he answers that such a person should take communion, because if he is forbidden to do so, the demon will often force him to swallow water in order to prevent him from proceeding to the Divine Mysteries. Question 17: Because we often listen to the word of God and do not fulfill it, do we not fall under condemnation? Even if we do not fulfill them, it is impossible for us not to reproach ourselves for the fact that, while listening, we do not obey. And reproaching oneself is part of salvation. They asked the saint whether we are not doomed to condemnation because we often listen to the word of God, but in fact do not fulfill what we listen to. He answers: we need to listen to the word of God, even if we do not fulfill it in practice. After all, although we do not do it, it is impossible not to reproach ourselves for the fact that, while listening, we do not obey and do not fulfill what we hear. And such self-reproach is part of salvation, because it gives birth to humility in the soul, for the sake of which God becomes merciful to our sins and justifies us, just as He justified the sinful but humble publican more than the virtuous but vain Pharisee 279. Question 18. At what age are sins judged by God? As each person learns and reasons. Some have been in court since the age of ten, and others from a later age. St. Timothy was also asked about the age at which God judges a person’s sins. To this he replies that sins are judged in accordance with a person’s knowledge and reasoning. Indeed, children, who are naturally intelligent and smart, begin to distinguish good from evil more easily and quickly, and therefore God judges their sins from the age of ten. And on the contrary, those who are naturally slow and incomprehensible come to distinguish between good and evil with greater difficulty and more slowly, which is why the Lord judges them for their sins from a later age. See also note. to VI Omni. 40. Socrates. Book 4, ch. 36 (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. IV, 37 // PG 67, 557D.). Sozomen. Book 6, ch. 28 (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VI, 29 // PG 67, 1373B.). The fact that the evil spirit nests in every unbaptized person, be it an adult or an infant, is clear, firstly, from the prayers that the Church reads before baptism over every unbaptized catechumen, and especially from the following words: “And the priest blows on his [the catechumen’s] mouth, on his forehead and chest, saying: “Cast out from him every evil and unclean spirit that is hidden and nesting in the heart.” him." Secondly, from Chapter 76. St. Diadoche (Philokalia, p. 224), which says: “From the Divine Scriptures and from the very feeling of the mind, I understood that before holy baptism, grace from without encourages the soul to goodness, and Satan nests in the very depths of the soul, trying to block the mind from all right paths. But from the time we are reborn in baptism, the demon is outside, and grace is inside” (Diadoch. Capita de perf. spirit. 76 // PG 65, 1194D.). And thirdly, from the words of the Lord that when an unclean spirit leaves a person, he goes to dry places, looking for rest, and does not find it (Matthew 12:43). Gregory the Theologian understood these words in his speech on baptism to mean that they apply to everyone who is baptized from whom an unclean spirit emanates (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40. 35 // PG 36, 409AB.). And note that many can be baptized in the same consecrated water of baptism, according to Job (Chrysanthus. Syntagmation, p. 130). Balsamon also names a third reason. Namely: someone who is under the visible influence of a demon cannot be baptized until he is cleansed, because in baptism he must become the abode of the grace of the All-Holy Spirit. This means that the opposing spirit must first be cast out so that the Holy Spirit can enter. After all, two opposing spirits cannot exist in one person. And if, as we said, the evil spirit, nesting and secretly acting in the heart of an unbaptized person, must come out of it before baptism (which is why spells are read over the catechumen), then all the more must the spirit acting openly come out. And the fact that grace and the evil spirit mentioned by St. cannot be present in one soul at the same time. Diadochus proves in chapters 76 to 88 (Philokalia, ibid.) (PG 65, 1194C-1202D.). True, St. Macarius says that there are two faces in the soul - vice and virtue, and in this, as it may seem, the two holy fathers contradict each other. However, they can probably be reconciled like this: in one person after baptism there are two, as the divine Macarius said (See, for example: Macar. Aeg. Hom. 16. 2–3 // PG 34, 613C-616B, etc.), but in different parts, that is, grace is in the depths of the soul, and the evil one is near the heart and in general in the body, and he stupefies the soul with bodily moisture. This happens by God’s permission, in order to test will, and for the sake of achievement, as Diadochos says (Ibid.). And note that the same St. Timothy, in the 3rd rule, allows someone who is demonized not constantly, but at times, who is faithful and does not blaspheme the sacrament, to receive communion when he is not possessed by a demon, but he does not say anything similar about an unbaptized catechumen who is possessed by a demon, i.e., he does not explain whether someone who is possessed intermittently can be baptized when he is not possessed or not. See p. 1046 “Evergetina”, where the words of Abba Cassian are quoted that the holy communion was taught to those possessed by demons and this was never prohibited by the ancient elders. It also says that the Holy Mysteries are taught not as food for the demon, but for the purification of the soul and body of the possessed, in order to burn away the evil spirit that has taken possession of the bodily members of a person, and if we forbid the possessed from receiving communion, then we will allow the demon to torment them more often and more severely, because they are deprived of God’s help given through Divine communion. Legal spouses must abstain from carnal intercourse for at least three days, after which they can receive communion. See note. 1 to VI Omni. 13. Aristin and some other interpreters say that by Easter here we mean Holy Week, but there is no particular difference between the one and the other understanding of Easter, because both on Lent itself and on Holy Week one must fast with dry eating, and in this they do not differ. Therefore, whether a woman gives birth on Lent or on Holy Week, there is no need to make differences in the weakening of fasting. What is meant here by weakening the fast is that a woman should eat food that can restore her bodily strength, depleted after childbirth, as St. Timofey. And this is food only with oil, because the same father in the 10th rule says that someone who is completely exhausted from illness can eat oil. Here, too, some understand Easter to be Holy Week. Please note that according to this rule, the fast of Pentecost is dry eating, with abstinence from wine and oil. The liturgy, which, according to the rule, was to be performed after the wedding, was performed, of course, so that those who entered into marriage would receive communion of the Divine Mysteries. This is what true Christians seeking salvation should do now, after they have confessed and prepared themselves with abstinence and other good deeds. See 1st note about this. to VI Omni. 13. So the Patriarch of Constantinople Nikephoros, at first, under strong pressure from Emperor Constantine, son of Irene, forgave (like Tarasius) the steward of the Great Church Joseph, who performed the wedding of this emperor with the Cuvicular Theodota, his relative, after the emperor divorced Mary, his former wife. However, later, after the accession of the pious Emperor Michael, Joseph himself (St. Nikephoros) excommunicated (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. pp. 661 and 745). Therefore, the laws prescribe that marriage should not be done secretly, but openly, in the presence of many people, so that the priests who will perform the wedding will know exactly from those present whether the marriage is legal or not (Armenopul. Book 4, tit. 4). And anyone who dares to get married secretly must be punished along with the priest who married him according to church rules. In addition, if a priest marries someone without the written permission of the bishop, then he must also be punished. Balsamon in the 1st answer to Mark, mentioning this rule and conveying it briefly, says that the laity who have become defiled in a dream can receive communion, but the clergy on the day when this happened to them should not serve for the sake of respect for the holy order. An exception can only be if there is a great holiday and it is dangerous to postpone the sacred rite, because it is necessary, as John of Kitras says about this (see note to Dionysius Alexander. 4). But since it is difficult to judge when the outflow is caused only by the temptation and envy of a demon, and when by lust for a woman or another reason depending on a person, then the most faithful and wise thing is not to receive communion either to a layman or to a hieromonk if this happened to them, as we have already said about this in the note. to Dionysius Alexander. 4. Balsamon, in the 11th answer to Mark of Alexandria, says that spouses must certainly abstain from copulation not only on the day they receive communion, but also on the eve and after communion, and those who do not observe this will suffer severe punishment. See also 1st note. to VI Omni. 13. But even if spouses do not receive communion on the indicated days, they must still abstain. For this reason, Balsamon, in the 49th answer to the same Mark, says that spouses who do not abstain from carnal mixing on Saturday and Sunday should be corrected by moderate penances. In addition, they must abstain from carnal intercourse on Great Pentecost, as well as on Wednesdays and Fridays. See also note. to Apost. 9. Note that civil laws, trying to prevent suicide, prescribe the confiscation of the property of someone who kills himself, i.e., to divide this property among the people, and for an unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide they are punished as a murderer (see Vlastar on suicides). And since some madmen thought that the souls of people who died a violent death become demons, the divine Chrysostom refuted their incorrect idea (Homily 36 on Lazarus in vol. 5, p. 234) (Ioan. Chrysost. De Lazaro 2. 2 // PG 48, 983–985.). Note that the prescription of this rule was confirmed even earlier by the presbyter of one monastery of St. Pachomius, who forbade the commemoration of the two suicide nuns (see the life of St. Pachomius in Lavsaik (Pallad. Hist. laus. 40 // PG 34, 1105CD-1106A.)). So, both from this rule and from the words of the Lord, it follows that those who release their demon-possessed wives, whether they are demoniac all their lives or for some time, commit adultery. For this reason, the novel of Emperor Leo, which allows a man to leave his possessed wife, should be invalidated, and there is no need to listen to Balsamon, who allows such a man to take another wife and agrees with Leo’s decree. Both husband and wife, whoever is under the influence of a demon, must bear with each other, understanding that this happened because of their sins, and not just by chance. Let the husbands of possessed women take an example from the most reverent and God-fearing husband, who had a wife named Theotekna, who lived in Rusopolis in Cilicia. This incident is mentioned in the life of St. Simeon of Divnogorets (4th act of VII Ecum.). This woman lived with her husband for 20 years, and, despite the fact that all this time she fell in fits of demonic possession and bit her tongue (which began in her childhood, when she was 14 years old; in other words, from the time when her husband took her as his wife upon reaching marriageable age), her blessed husband did not take another wife, courageously endured grief and kindling of the flesh, until his wife was freed from the demon through the prayers of St. Simeon. However, in order not to give the demon a reason and reason for such cases, everyone who is preparing for communion should not rinse their mouths or wash themselves on the day they are to receive communion. Let them rinse their mouths in the evening and wash them the day before communion. So Balsamon in the 2nd answer to Mark says that neither priest nor layman is allowed to wash or do bloodletting on the day they received communion, neither before nor after communion. After all, both before and after communion, they should fall to God with all tenderness and reverence and thank Him for the communion of the most holy Body and Blood, which they have been honored with, and not relax and strive to pamper the body by bathing in warm water. Only then can bloodletting be performed on the day of communion when it is necessary due to a fatal illness. Armenopoul says the same thing in his “Summary of Rules.” And about the fact that, except due to bodily weakness, neither lay people, nor even more so clergy, can wash in the bathhouse, see note. to VI Omni. 77. It is this rule that St. Petersburg borrows. Anastasius Sinait and makes it his 103rd question answer (Anast. Sinait. Respons. 103 // PG 89, 757A.), if, of course, all those question answers that were published in the 1777 edition really belong to Anastasius Sinait. However, please note that St. Timothy does not apply this rule to those careless people who listen to the word of God, but through negligence they neglect what they hear and do not fulfill it, thinking that if they reproach themselves for this failure, then they must be saved. Let these careless people not think so and do not perceive this rule as a reason for negligence. This rule was not pronounced for their sake, but for the sake of those who listen to the word of God and, as far as possible, strive to fulfill it, but due to bodily weakness cannot fulfill it perfectly. The divine Chrysostom also speaks in accordance with this rule: he who heard the word of God and did not fulfill it, but condemned himself for not fulfilling it, is considered to have done half of what he heard, and moreover, by self-reproach he strives for fulfillment (Ioan. Chrysost. De poenit. 8. 1 // PG 49, 337.). See this saying at the beginning of the book. See also the saying of the divine Maximus: “There are many of us who speak, but few who do” (Maximus Conf. De carit. IV, 85 // PG 90, 1069A.), and always keep this in mind, because it is useful in almost every case when you communicate not only with those who live in negligence and indifference, but also with those who, through their negligence, slander both the Scriptures themselves and the divine words.