К вопросу о дисциплине покаяния и Причащения (По поводу тезисов проф.прот. о.Т.Налимова. «Путь», №18) 122

Archpriest Nalimov’s theses, now published in “The Way,” deserve careful and sincere discussion both in their content and in the significance of his personality, as evidenced by those who were in spiritual communion with him. 123 Distracting from theological details, in which there is a lot that is controversial and inaccurate (in particular, in relation to Catholicism), I will dwell only on two of his ideas that are extremely vitally important - about the frequency of Communion and about the relationship between confession and Communion. The first question has become especially vital recently - in Russia, amid continuous martyrdom for the faith, and in the emigration, living unwillingly outside the old way of life. The prevailing practice, as we know, was that it was considered a Christian duty for the laity to “fast” once (or twice) during Lent, and even the Church’s wish that fasting should be done in every fast (that is, four times a year) was, as a rule, not fulfilled. This practice was associated with increased discipline of the Sacrament, which required strict and lengthy preparation for Communion through attendance at all services during the week, intense fasting and prayer. Without this condition, Communion seemed to be a humiliation of the Sacrament. But, on the other hand, believers were brought up in the idea that repeated Communion was inappropriate for the laity, and exceptions (Father John of Kronstadt) only confirmed the general rule that frequent Communion was not for the laity. And some church leaders even considered this as a general church norm, which, however, never existed. A rule that was established and, perhaps, even appropriate for one historical era, was accepted as universal. In fact, the practice of the Church has changed at different times - from the Communion of all believers at each Liturgy in the first centuries (Διδαχή, St. Justin) to the modern one with a single Communion during the year. The canonical rules in this regard allow and rather encourage frequent, even daily Communion: “It is good and beneficial to commune and receive the Divine Mysteries every day... however, we commune four times every week: on the Lord’s Day, on Wednesday, on Friday and Saturday, and also on other days, if there is a commemoration of a saint. And what is in no way dangerous is if someone, during persecution, in the absence of a priest or servant, finds it necessary to take Communion with his own hand, it would be unnecessary to prove this, for long-standing custom confirms this in practice. For all monks living in deserts where there is no priest, keeping Communion in the house, commune to themselves. And in Alexandria and Egypt, every baptized layman for the most part has Communion in his home, and he himself receives communion when he wants. For, when the priest has once performed and taught the Sacrifice, then he who has accepted it as a whole, receiving communion daily, must believe that he is receiving and receiving communion from the One who taught Himself.” This canonical rule of St. Basil the Great does not correspond to our usual views to such an extent that it even seems strange to read it in the “Rules of the Orthodox Church.” 124 The permissibility and desirability of frequent Communion for the laity is canonically established and corresponds to the practice of the Ancient Church. Nor can any dogmatic grounds be given against this. Union with Christ in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is for a Christian a source of life and strength and joy. Eucharistic hunger and thirst, the desire to receive the Holy Mysteries should be a natural state for a Christian and, in a certain sense, are a measure of his spiritual age. Of course, he must approach “with the fear of God,” with repentant prayer for his sins and a feeling of his deepest unworthiness, but also with faith that the Lord came into the world “to save sinners.” One must prepare for Communion with all seriousness and responsibility, but there is no need to frighten oneself, just as there is no need to frighten oneself away with sinfulness. "Am I not ready?" “You will never be ready,” was the wise old man’s answer to the layman’s natural doubt. What makes the human conscience more cunning is that it sinks deeper into sleep if it knows that it has a long time before it, and, on the contrary, it is kept under greater tension by the need to put itself more often before the judgment of God. Of course, everything here is individual and corresponds to the era and state of personal life. However, in our time, this saving thirst for frequent Communion has already been awakened, and the duty of the pastor is not to delay or extinguish it, but rather to support it and, in any case, satisfy it (if possible, external and internal). Moreover, the pastor must call to the Holy Mysteries, encouraging more frequent Communion, to the extent not least, but to the greatest extent possible for everyone, and in any case without binding it with any formal restrictions. This is now becoming the dominant practice in Russia and even abroad, and one of the inspired and courageous heralds on this path is Father Nalimov. The change that has taken place, or at least is taking place, in the practice of Communion is one of the saving spiritual achievements of our time associated with its sufferings and upheavals, and it should not be lost. What could be the limit of increasing the frequency of Communion for the laity? And should we strive to make it everyday, which was apparently the idea of ​​Father Nalimov (thesis 21) and how this is now practiced in Catholicism and Anglicanism? 125 Although this possibility is not excluded by canonical prohibitions and therefore cannot be disputed as an exception, however, in our opinion, it should not be a general norm, as unbearable and excessive. When compared with the practice of Western Christianity, we must not forget the full force of the liturgical and disciplinary differences that currently exist between the Eastern and Western Churches. The Western Mass without singing has a shorter duration than our morning rule with preparation for Communion, and does not compare with the duration of our Liturgy, especially if we add Vespers, Matins and the rule to it (not to mention the fact that in the West there is a practice of Communion with spare Gifts in addition to the Mass). It is inappropriate to lower disciplinary requirements, and this makes daily Communion at the Liturgy practically impossible, even for clergy. But it is also spiritually excessive, more than the laity can bear under normal conditions, as their own consciousness testifies to this. For clergy, a special power for this is given with the ordination, and, in addition, for them Communion is inseparably connected with the very performance of the Sacrament. However, what is natural for them is difficult for the laity, from whom even greater stress would be required to receive communion at each Liturgy than from the clergy. However, our Liturgy makes it possible for the laity to participate in the Eucharistic Table in addition to direct Communion, firstly, through spiritual Communion, which is served through reverent presence, and, consequently, participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and, secondly, through eating the Eucharistic bread, prosphora, which has no correspondence in the Western Mass. The prosphora, from which a particle is removed for immersion in the Holy Chalice, is a material sign of spiritual communion, and together with the “antidor” - ἀντίδωρον, instead of communion from the bread, which was the substance of the Eucharist. 126 At the same time, this is also the Church’s memory of the agapes, which were originally closely connected with the Eucharist. Such participation in the Eucharistic Table is served to all believers at every Liturgy. Moreover, it is advisable to eat prosphora every day at home. The Western Church, having no prosphora, therefore does not know the middle between complete indifference in the Eucharistic Table and daily Communion, and therefore excessively weakens the discipline of Communion, at the same time introducing formalism into it and through this externalizing, mechanizing the Most Holy Sacrament. The foregoing, however, does not exclude the possibility of daily Communion for a certain limited period of time (two, three or even more days in a row), which is a matter of individual case and pastoral discretion. It seems, in any case, that it would be unnatural for Orthodoxy in this regard to approach the newest Catholic practice of daily Communion of the laity, which, along with positive aspects, also has negative ones (due to the unsustainability of this). Everything that has been said applies to Communion at the Liturgy, and, of course, it is completely undesirable to separate one from the other arbitrarily and unnecessarily. The rule, on the contrary, is that if the Liturgy is celebrated, for everyone who can attend it, Communion is possible only at the Liturgy and in connection with the Liturgy. Therefore, communion with the spare Holy Gifts is performed only for the sick and infirm who cannot attend the Liturgy. As we know from the above rule of St. Basil the Great, the Ancient Church knew the use of reserve Gifts on a wider scale, and the main difference from modern practice is that reserve Gifts in certain cases were also given to the hands of the laity, in accordance with the most ancient custom. The stricter modern practice, according to which the Holy Gifts are administered only by a priest, has already been subject to exception in certain cases. We know that Father Archpriest Nalimov systematically sent the Holy Gifts for Communion to prisoners on death row (and who in a Soviet prison could not end up on death row?), and, we think, we can only kiss the loving boldness of the shepherd with gratitude. We have a similar situation in the life of refugees, when they are sent for many years to remote places where there is no church, for example, Central Africa. 127 In addition, the communion of the reserve Holy Gifts can and should be expanded, compared with current practice, to such cases when it is not possible to celebrate the Liturgy, and this applies equally to both priests and laity. The practice of Communion with spare Gifts already exists abroad during Lent and before Easter in places where the Liturgy cannot be celebrated. By expanding it, it would be possible to move closer to the ideal of daily Communion for the priest - not only at the Liturgy, but also independently of it. The most pressing and controversial issue in Father Nalimov’s theses concerns the separation of the Sacrament of Confession from Communion and Communion without confession. It is true that the current connection between confession and Communion does not belong to the Ancient Church, it arose historically, although this does not say anything against its significance (the opposite point of view is characteristic only of liberal Protestantism). It is also true that Confession is an independent Sacrament, which may not be combined with Communion, although the soul, revealed to God in repentance, naturally longs for perfect union with Him in the Holy Mysteries, so this connection is internal. Is it necessary for the laity to prepare for Communion through confession? The negative answer to this question contains the most characteristic, and at the same time the most controversial thought of Father Nalimov. Both in his practice and in his theses, he denies this necessity, arguing that confession is needed only in the presence of a sin leading to death, excommunicating a Christian from Christ, “for those who doubt (?) their belonging to the Church and seek reconciliation with it” - “any other sin can be cleansed by subjective repentance alone without the permission of the sacramental.” This general idea, intelligible with the formal Catholic distinction of sins into mortal and venial (peccata mortialia et venalia), which Father Nalimov himself however rejects, presupposes such lynching of conscience that places an unbearable burden on the laity. It cannot be disputed that, generally speaking, a priest can, if he finds it appropriate, allow one to receive Communion without a deliberate confession, or, more precisely, on the basis of one confession, allow one to receive repeated Communion (cases of such a practice are known to me from another Moscow priest). But even this assumption, which is by no means of a general nature, but applies only to certain individuals, does not at all contain that separation of the Sacraments of Confession and Communion, as is the case with Father Nalimov. 128 Father Nalimov’s understanding of confession oscillates between the subjective state of a sinner condemning himself, and the objective act of permission, without which there is no Sacrament of Repentance, and he also establishes a special type of repentance in the form of a conversation with a shepherd without permission. In the latter case, the shepherd himself decides whether permission is needed or whether subjective repentance is sufficient. All this introduces completely unnecessary subjectivity and instability, even arbitrariness, into the discipline of repentance. A sensitive conscience, appearing before God, always recognizes, if not its own sin, then its sinfulness, which is why the one who approaches the Chalice confesses himself as the first of sinners. The sacramental resolution provides remission of sins, but the feeling of sinfulness is also alleviated by the grace-filled refreshment in this remission of sins, both known and unknown. The Sacrament of Repentance is needed for everyone, and for the self-righteous Pharisees, perhaps more than for the weeping tax collectors. And what is needed is a gracious resolution and the renewal hidden in it. And if this is so, then there is no reason to separate Communion from the Sacrament of Repentance. For clergy, in the ordination itself, the power and authority of communion is given at each Liturgy without prior repentance. (Therefore, the latter acquires an independent meaning here, although for the clergyman, Communion after confession is of particular importance, just as in strict monasteries the weekly hieromonk prepares for the week through confession. However, this is connected precisely with the celebration of the Liturgy, outside of which a priest, for example a sick person, according to existing custom, receives Holy Communion according to the lay rite after preliminary confession (at least not every time)). 129 For the laity, it is much more natural to begin Communion, having received sacramental resolution from sins, even if their confession relates not to extraordinary ones, but to everyday ones, that is, not so much to sins as to sinfulness. There are no sinless people, and the Sacrament of Repentance, even with the most complete confession, does not make one sinless, even in sins of “ignorance,” and it is not sinfulness that separates them from the Cup to which sinners are called, but unrepentance. But the feeling of our sinfulness draws us to the “medical clinic” of repentance, so that, with grace-filled permission, we can perform a new washing of conscience. They may say that such permission without a specific, meaningful confession turns into a formality or “magism.” However, this would be so if in the conscience of the penitent there was no consciousness of his actual sinfulness before God, but without this consciousness it is impossible to worthily approach the Holy Mysteries. The single Sacrament of Confession contains various specific possibilities for implementation according to the individual state of the penitent (and this difference corresponds to various spiritual measures in the form of penances). On this basis, we cannot agree with the fact that the so-called general confession “has no relation to the Sacrament of Repentance” (thesis 23). One can treat general confession with great restraint, limiting its use only to special conditions of its expediency or inevitability and certainly supplementing it with individual confession in special cases. However, one cannot deny the power of the Sacrament behind it on the sole grounds that there is no personal meeting of each penitent with his confessor. Firstly, here the confession of sins is made through naming them and asking about them by the priest, and, secondly, here a general grace-filled resolution is given. 130 Therefore, general confession is a Sacrament, just as the permission given when confessing not only sins, but general sinfulness, also has mysterious power. But even such a brief and general confession serves as sufficient preparation for Communion. It is undesirable to lower penitential discipline without sufficient necessity, just as it is undesirable to introduce the widespread practice of Communion without repentance. However, here, as in general in matters of disciplinary order, the “circumstances of place and time” are of decisive importance, as well as those special personal properties and states that can only be known to one shepherd, who takes responsibility before God on the basis of this or that order given to him. 131 But, as a general rule, the thought of Father Nalimov is more likely to lead to a further decline in church discipline, although applied in appropriate cases it had, according to the testimony of those who were under his pastoral care, the most beneficial spiritual fruits. In any case, the basic fact remains unchanged that between the laity and the Eucharistic Sacrifice the priest stands as an intermediary, and without this mediation of the priesthood its partaking cannot take place. The significance of Father Nalimov’s theses is that they raise living and important questions of Eucharistic life, and, what is especially important, they contain the Eucharistic call - to more frequent communion. And this call is brought to us from our homeland, from the Russian Church. In suffering amid persecution, the necessity, saving power and power of that gracious help that is given to us from the Eucharistic Chalice are more clearly and acutely recognized, and this same call is heard now throughout the entire Christian world. Published by “The Path”... No. 9. November 1929. P.70–78 – Approx. edit See prof. S.S. Bezobrazov. Three images // “Renaissance”. 5/18 Jan. 1926 With interpretations of Bishop Nicodemus (St. Petersburg, 1912, vol. 2, pp. 612–613). Other canonical rules related here speak of the need for preliminary communication (pr. 5, pp. 614–615, pr. 6,16). Rule 7 poses a general question: “What is better: to receive communion often or rarely?” This question is not given a direct answer, but only a general instruction is made about the need for preliminary purification (p. 617). Thus, we can say that the canonical rules do not at all prohibit frequent Communion, but encourage it only if there is an appropriate mood, without avoiding any external boundaries. St. spoke in favor of frequent communion. Seraphim of Sarov and, of course, Father John of Kronstadt. Deer. Congr. S.Cone. appr. a Pio X 20 Dec. 1905 (Denzinger, 1981) allows frequent and daily Communion to all Christians of every rank and position, so that no one who approaches the Holy Table in statu gratiae (in a state of reverence - Ed.), in a right and pious mood, should be denied. Confessors are obliged not to oppose, and church writers are forbidden to raise a dispute regarding the usefulness of frequent Communion. Eating prosphora, like artos (also blessed bread), corresponds to those occasions when the Lord broke and blessed bread, giving it to the people: a miraculous feeding, a supper during the procession to Emmaus. We know of a case where a pious layman, personally known to the priest, was entrusted, with the knowledge of the bishop, with the Holy Gifts for Communion with appropriate instructions, and they were reverently preserved. It is known that Communion without confession is practiced in some places in the Balkans, but here it is associated with a weakening of discipline, which is gradually being restored. Communion with the spare Gifts for a healthy priest, who for some reason is unable to perform the Liturgy, but still serves at least the “liturgy”, is not subject to such restrictions. In this regard, casuistic questions arise: is confession possible at a distance - by letter or by telephone (if it is impossible otherwise?). And, what is most important here, is the same resolution possible? I personally do not see sufficient grounds for a negative answer to these questions and I know an example of a dying confession over the phone. By the way, for some reason Father Nalimov talks about the “prohibition of changing a confessor,” which does not exist either in Catholicism or in Orthodoxy. Of course, it is useless to change a confessor without reason, but everyone is free not only to choose, but also to change, since this is caused by the needs of his spiritual life.