Repentance in the Church and repentance in Catholicism

Contents I. A look at repentance from the canonical penance nomocanons II. Repentance according to the nomocanon of John the Faster III. Repentance according to the views of ancient Russian confessors IV. Repentance according to Latin penitentials V. Deviations from the canonical understanding of repentance in penance nomocanons Is there a sadder fact in the history of the Christian Church than the falling away from the universal Church of Rome? This falling away occurred when church theological thought had already faded, when the great luminaries of Christian theology had gone beyond the horizon of earthly life. Church writers, contemporary or close in time to the apostasy of Rome, turned out to be little able to appreciate this apostasy in all its fundamental vital depth. When you read polemical works against the Latins, written by Greek writers of the 11th and 12th centuries, for example, Patriarch Michael Cerullarius, John, Metropolitan of Claudiopolis, as well as the writings of ancient Russian authors who steadily follow their Greek models, for example, “The Sermon on the Christian and Latin Faith” by St. Theodosius of Pechersk, “Competition with Latin” by Metropolitan George, the writings of Metropolitan Nikifor, an article of Greek origin, but then Russified, “about the Friars and other Latins” - when you read all this, you involuntarily notice that in all this polemic there is no indication at all of any significant difference between Catholic life and the life of the Church. Church writers speak harshly about Catholicism, but they talk about trifles; they only strive to accumulate more and more all kinds of accusations against the Latins; The number of charges seems to be more valuable to them than their quality and severity. Moreover, the abuses of individuals are constantly reproached as a whole against Catholicism. Our Russian Metropolitan George denounces the Latins for the fact that they do not make either a great or a small entrance during the liturgy and perform the service not in the altar, but throughout the church, that their bishops wear rings. “They eat bears and donkeys; their priests eat beaver meat for fasting, saying that they eat all kinds of fish from the water.” “They eat with the dog in a single vessel, eating it themselves, and supply the excess to the dog, let them lick it, and then they eat it again themselves if they want.” The Greek Patriarch Michael Kerullarius writes: “They eat strangled meat and a certain amount of filthy meat; their monks eat the fat of pork, lard, and all kinds of skin, even to the point of meat.” The same patriarch, and after him our Metropolitan George, reproach the Latins: “They cut their beards with a razor, which is cut off from the Mosaic Law and from the Gospel” (see A.S. Pavlov. Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1878, pp. 152, 192, 195). All such “guilts” of the Latins were classified as heresies. But even today, seminary textbooks on “accusatory theology” tend to strain out the mosquito while completely silencing the camel. Filioque, unleavened bread, purgatory - these are the main points of controversy. A person who does not look beyond these textbooks may naturally wonder: why divide? Why deny the salvation of Catholics? Our time is a time of all kinds of fakes and falsifications. The Church has been replaced by Christianity; living life is an abstract teaching. The boundaries between Orthodoxy and heresy, between truth and error, are being erased in the minds of many. Some kind of pan-Christianity, unknown to the Church, has emerged in modern religious consciousness. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are placed on the same level. Several churches appeared - Orthodox, Catholic, even Protestant, Anglican, etc., although it would seem that it should be clear that One Head can have only one body. The essential difference between any heresy and church truth will become clear to us only when we leave the purely dogmatic and theoretical sphere, and compare the very understanding of life, so to speak, the religious psychology of a member of the Church and a heretic. This is precisely the path for a principled judgment about Western heresies that Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) recommends in his article: “How does the Orthodox faith differ from Western confessions?” – an article that is the most interesting and meaningful of all recent polemical literature. According to the author’s absolutely fair judgment: “All the misconceptions of the West are rooted in a misunderstanding of Christianity as a feat of gradual self-improvement of man.” An essential distinctive feature of Western confessions is recognized as “a lack of understanding of the simple truth that Christianity is an ascetic religion, that Christianity is the doctrine of the gradual elimination of passions, the means and conditions for the gradual assimilation of virtues: these conditions are internal, consisting of deeds, and externally given, consisting in our dogmatic beliefs and grace-filled sacred rites, which have one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to perfection" 1 . It is quite understandable that to compare the religious psychology of a Catholic and a member of the Church we choose repentance. Repentance is the essence of the Christian life. The whole life of a Christian is repentance, a change from the old man to the new man, created according to God, in righteousness and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:24). In what a person therefore believes to be the essence of repentance, in that he sees the essence of his life, his salvation. Religious psychology, like rays in focus, gathers into the psychology of the penitent. We will not talk about the dogmatic side of repentance, but precisely about its psychology. Dogmatic teaching is always partly a product of the school, and the school is in rather distant connection with church life. The Church should not be judged by the products of the school, or can only be judged with great caution. Analyzing the question of repentance, we have very abundant and extremely interesting literary material, in which Church life itself and the life understanding of those people who did not talk about repentance, but committed repentance itself, seemed to be cast and frozen. There are many such literary monuments for both Catholicism and Orthodoxy - this is partly a guide for confessors, partly their own works. This literature is usually called penance literature. The Orthodox Church knows penance nomocanons, Catholicism knows penitentials. Catholic penitentiaries have long been collected and scientifically published; Church penance literature has only recently become known thanks to the publications of prof. A.I. Almazova and prof. S.I. Smirnova, and until that time it was in ancient handwritten collections in monastery libraries. For us, these old manuscripts are priceless because they fell into disrepair in the hands of the ancient Russian “spiritual fathers”; they imprinted ancient Russian theological thought, ancient Russian highly religious psychology. The literary monuments of the class we have chosen speak mainly about penances, but a look at penance is, after all, a look at the meaning of repentance itself. I. A look at repentance from the canonical penance nomocanons The fundamental basis for the church's penitential system was filled in during the flowering period of Church theology by the greatest theologians of the ancient Church. Back in the fourth century, the first and fundamental penance nomocanons were created. The three canonical epistles of St. should be recognized as such penance nomocanons. Basil the Great to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and the canonical letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa to Litoius, Bishop of Melitino. These epistles, canonized by the second rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, formed the basis of all later works of this kind, to this day retain their indisputable canonical authority in the Christian Church and are placed in the “Book of Rules”. Later penitential nomocanons constantly refer to the penitential system of St. Basil the Great, from whom the penance nomocanon of the Eastern Church should begin 2. But the aforementioned penance rules express a view on the meaning of penances and the meaning of repentance, a view, so to speak, canonical for the Church, if it wants to be faithful to its eternal truths. First of all, it should be noted that, by their nature, these messages do not at all resemble any legal code in which sins and the corresponding penances would be listed. No, these are manuals for shepherds. Christian shepherding should be like the good Shepherd who is looking for a lost sheep and, “let us receive it,” brings it to the Heavenly Father. The penitential rules of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa speak about this ideal of shepherding. By the 4th century, the Church clearly and definitely expressed its teaching about itself as a physician for the infirmities of human souls, as a pedagogical institution. Those rigorists of antiquity who, for the sake of the imaginary holiness of the Church, wanted to completely cross out or in one way or another limit repentance, were condemned by the Church as heretics (Montanists) or schismatics (Novatians, Donatists). In close connection with the concept of the Church as a physician of the weak conscience of man stands the general ideological spirit of our canonical penance nomocanons. According to these nomocanons, penance, deprivation of St. communion for a certain time. The sacrament and participation in public worship (in some of its parts) is not only a direct consequence of sin, but certainly has educational significance for the sinner himself. According to ancient church concepts, repentance does not consist only in confessing sins, but also in bearing penance, and penance itself is nothing more than one of the medical remedies. At St. Basil the Great, there is almost no other name for penance than healing; the whole purpose of penance is to “remove those who have sinned from the snare of the evil one” (Basily the Great Rule 85) and to “overthrow and destroy sin in every possible way” (Basily the Great Rule 29). Basil the Great speaks of public repentance, but such repentance, in his opinion, not only protects the holiness of the Church, but also heals the sinner. Basil the Great prescribes very long penances for the penitent, but the period of penance, in his opinion, is not something self-sufficient, but is entirely determined by the benefit of the penitent. Penance should extend only as long as it is needed for the spiritual benefit of the sinner. “If anyone of those who fell into the above sins, having confessed, becomes zealous in correction, then he who has received from God’s love for mankind the power to loose and bind will not be worthy of condemnation when, seeing the extremely zealous confession of the sinner, he becomes more merciful and reduces the penance (Basil the Great Rule 74). "We write all this for the sake of experiencing the fruits of repentance. For we do not judge this by time alone, but look at the image of repentance" (Basily the Great Rule 84). “Healing is measured not by time, but by the way of repentance” (Rule 2). These words briefly and quite clearly express the view of St. Basil the Great on the essence of repentance and penance: repentance and penance have one high goal - the improvement of the Christian personality. This is exactly the same view of the essence of repentance and the meaning of penance, expressed in the letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa. In Gregory we find much more direct discussion about the meaning of penance and repentance. The canonical epistle of St. Gregory is almost all instructions on healing the mental illnesses of a sinner. St. Gregory writes: “Just as in physical healing the goal of the medical art is one - the return of health to the sick, but the way of healing is different, because according to the difference in ailments, each disease has a decent method of healing; so in mental illness, due to the multitude and variety of passions, a variety of healing care is made necessary, which produces healing according to the ailment.” Then St. Gregory names the powers of the soul: the power of the mind, the power of lust and the power of irritation. “In these there are both the exploits of those who live virtuously, and the fall of those who are inclined to evil. Therefore, anyone who wants to apply decent healing to an ailing part of the soul must first consider the part in which the illness occurred; then, according to decency, apply healing to the suffering person so that, out of ignorance of the healing method, the healing of a single part is not given, when the disease is in another - just as we actually see many doctors who, not recognizing the initially painful part of the body, with their healing strengthened the disease "(Gregory of Nyssa Rule 1). Thus, St. Gregory primarily emphasizes the medical, educational meaning of repentance and penance. The Church cares only about the benefit of its members, who may sometimes get sick. St. Gregory of Nyssa calls sin a disease (Rule 6), which must be healed by repentance, corresponding to sin. “He who has appropriated someone else’s property through secret theft and then through confession his sin to the priest, let him heal his illness by an exercise contrary to his passion, that is, by distributing his property to the poor, and by squandering what he has, he will show it. yourself cleansed from the disease of covetousness. To the one who has nothing but the body, the apostle commands to heal this passion with bodily labor "(Rule 6). From these words it is clear that, recognizing penance as a medicine, Gregory of Nyssa has in mind not only excommunication from church communion, but also prescribes special feats with which to heal passion. St. Gregory does not define these feats precisely and in detail, but only gives general instructions so that the one imposed upon repentance in the form of penance, the feat was the opposite of a healing passion. The time of penitential penance in itself has no meaning for St. Gregory of Nyssa. “In any kind of crime, one must first of all look at the disposition of the one being healed, and for healing it is not the time that is sufficient (for what kind of healing can be from time?), but the will of the one who heals himself with repentance” (Gregory of Nyssa’s Rule). 8). He who has been healed of a sinful illness does not need penance. "For those who undergo repentance more zealously and show by their life a return to the good, it is permissible to shorten the time of hearing and quickly lead them to conversion: likewise shorten the time of this and quickly allow them to receive communion, in accordance with how he learns by his own test the condition of the one being healed. For just as it is forbidden to cast pearls before swine, so it was inappropriate would be to deprive one of the precious beads who, through removal from sin and purification, had already become a man” (Rule 4). “At the discretion of conversion, the continuation of penance will be shortened... if by the greatness of repentance he strengthens the time and by zeal in correcting himself, he surpasses those who, over a long period of time, less actively cleanse themselves from defilements... Thus, if there is true conversion, then the number of years is not observed, but with the reduction of time, let the penitent be led to return to the Church and to the communion of the Holy Mysteries” (Rule 5). We have cited all these excerpts from the original church penance nomocanons because the views expressed in them on the meaning of repentance and the meaning of penances were canonized by the Church: these were the views “with delight” that were accepted by the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, who determined the rules of St. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa “to remain forever indestructible and unshakable” (Seventh Council Rule 1). The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, by the 12th canon, decreed: “The disposition and manner of repentance must be taken into consideration. For those who show conversion with fear and tears, and patience, and good works, in deed, and not in appearance, those, after completing a certain time of hearing, will be decently received into the communion of prayers. It is even permissible for the bishop and the more philanthropic to arrange something about them. And those who indifferently bore their the fall into sin, and the sight of entering the Church, consider themselves satisfied with conversion, let them fully fulfill the time of repentance.” The fathers of the Council of Ancyra reasoned in a similar way: "Let the bishops have the power, having experienced the type of conversion, to be philanthropic or to apply a greater period of repentance. Most of all, let the life that preceded the temptation and followed it be tested, and thus let philanthropy be measured" (Rule 5). The Sixth Ecumenical Council, which canonized the penitential rules of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, as if to confirm them, also expressed its view of repentance. “Those who have received the authority from God to decide and bind must consider the quality of sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and thus use healing appropriate to the illness, so that, without observing measures in both, they do not lose the salvation of the ailing person... God and the one who has received pastoral leadership are all concerned about bringing back the lost sheep and healing those wounded by the serpent. One should not drive one further down the rapids of despair, one should not let one lower the reins to a relaxation of life and to negligence; but one must certainly in some way, either through harsh and astringent, or through softer and easier medical means, counteract the illness and strive to heal the wound, and experience the fruits of repentance, and wisely manage a person called to heavenly enlightenment” (Rule 102). We will find exactly the same view of repentance in other, non-canonical, monuments of ancient church writing. St. also talks about repentance. John Chrysostom in conversations about repentance, the priesthood and the letter to the Corinthians. Chrysostom says that a confessor is a father, and not a judge, confession is a doctor’s office, and not a court of justice; in order to atone for a sin, one must confess it. Not a single doctor, instead of giving medicine to a patient, subjects him to reprimands and punishments for his disordered life. Chrysostom, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, advises to heal passion by exercising the opposite virtues (see “Creations”, ed. St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Vol. 2, pp. 312–315, 317, 323, 324). In ancient monastic rules, for example, in the rules of the Tavennisiot hostel, penance and repentance are considered as measures of correction and healing (Bishop Theophan. Ancient monastic rules. Moscow 1892, pp. 146 et seq.). In general, ancient monasticism considered repentance together with penances not a judicial punishment for crimes, not a means of satisfying the truth of God offended by sin, but a bitter medicine for a conscience that can and does suffer from various ailments. Imagining all repentance under the image of treating a seriously ill person, Rev. John Climacus says: “Each of the passions is abolished by one virtue that is contrary to it” (word 13, § 9). He speaks of repentance as cauterization; compares sins either with a new or with an old wound (word 5, § 30). The system of penances represented a whole series of spiritual medicines or operations, varied according to sins - diseases of conscience. The main task in developing the system of repentance was not to determine different amounts of time for repentance in the same penitential degrees for different sins, but to indicate different types of penitential feat for each sinner according to his sins and strengths, to determine the qualitative content of penances (see S. Smirnov. Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church. Sergiev Posad 1906, pp. 141, 134–148). II. Repentance according to the nomocanon of John the Faster Later church practice created other penance nomocanons. On the one hand, Basil the Great defines too long periods of excommunication, and on the other, the rules of Basil the Great themselves provide grounds for the development and mitigation of penitential discipline. As a result of this softening and development of penitential discipline, countless penance nomocanons appeared, one way or another associated with the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster. The concept of “Nomocanon of John the Faster” should be combined with the idea not of any simple, initial work, but of a complex whole, composed of different articles belonging to different authors (Prof. N. A. Zaozersky. Nomocanon of John the Faster, p. 19). There can hardly be any talk about the authenticity of the nomocanon of John the Faster 3 . Like any work that is not integral, but a compilation, the nomocanon of John the Faster was subject to all sorts of changes, and therefore its text exists in many different editions. Together with the confessional rite, it was revised many times both in Greece (Eastern Greek editions), and in the West (Western Greek editions), and in the South Slavic countries. The dark historical fate of this nomocanon attracted the attention of scientists, and a large specialized scientific literature was created around it. The task of all scientific research is almost exclusively to clarify the question of the authenticity or, in general, the origin of the nomocanon of John the Faster, and its various editions. Since we have in mind the ideological side of the penance nomocanons, all these historical-critical studies have little meaning for us. Whatever the origin of the nomocanon of John the Faster, no matter how much its text has been modified, one thing is indisputable: with all the many editions, the nomocanon of the Faster always invariably preserves the general ideological spirit; the ideological side of the nomocanons of the Postnikov type is the same. What does the nomocanon of John the Faster represent in terms of its ideological content? First of all, it should be noted that the nomocanon of John the Faster is not a comprehensive and detailed instruction on the assignment of penances to penitents; he is more concerned with reasoning about types of sins and various sinful states; The fasting nomocanon is almost not concerned with indicating specific cases of sin and the corresponding penances. The Nomocanon of the Faster is not a detailed list of sins and penances, but rather represents a treatise on pastoral theology, containing instructions on how a pastor should behave when making confession and what he needs to know in order to be a valid doctor of a sick soul entrusted to his care. The author of the nomocanon in the preface promises to discuss with what disposition and in what form a penitent should accept confession and what kind of person should be when accepting confession from others, and how, as a result of this, to accept pardon for sins, so as not to completely destroy someone who has no other sins. He wants to indicate certain canons and divisions of guilt, old age and youth, ignorant and knowing, slave and noble, rich and poor, in health or illness, burdened or brought to death, since there is a great difference between all of them (Nomocanon, ed. by T. A. Zaozersky and A. S. Khakhanov. pp. 12–15). The very inscription of the Nomocanon in many editions is very characteristic: “A canonary containing definitions about all the passions and the penances appropriate to them” (see Pete, ed. Preface p. 2, 82 and text p. 3) - definitions specifically about the passions, and not about individual falls. Indeed, the Nomocanon does not list individual sins, but lists and discusses the types of sinful moral disposition of people, and this is in all editions of the Nomocanon - both in Greek, and in Slavic, and in Georgian. The Nomocanon numbers ten different moral types of sinners (quoted ed. preface p. 30, text pp. 58–59). Penance, according to the instructions of Postnikov's nomocanon, is prescribed not only according to the difference of sins, but more according to the type to which the repentant sinner belongs. Therefore, the confessing confessor must accurately determine the moral state of the penitent, clarify in detail the circumstances of the sin, “We must look at youth and old age, and strength, and weakness, and the difference in place, and the image in which the evil is committed, since it is multiform and heterogeneous: whether he sinned himself or happened through another person, whether it happened intentionally and from diligence, or by accident, or by passion, whether from wine or by order, or from fear, or for the sake of poverty, or for some other reason - the receiving confessor must carefully and carefully discuss the age, and the hour, and the place, the compulsion and the subordination, and so forbid contrition, and shame, as well as terrible and true lamentation, as well as the offended and shameless, and not humble. When, after detailed questioning of the confessor, the penitent declares and does not hide anything, the confessor gives him penance “according to his strength, and moreover, for tenderness and repentance straight to tears” (Nomocanon, pp. 60–61). Consequently, penance here is determined not by sin, but by the moral state of the penitent. Penance is placed in close connection with a person’s moral mood and is prescribed only for the sake of his spiritual benefit. The whole interest of repentance is in the correction of a sinner; only this one goal is pursued by repentance - there is no other goal standing outside the moral personality. One can even say that the entire reform of penitential discipline associated with the name of John the Faster consists in bringing penances closer to the moral state of people. The Nomocanon of John the Faster refers to secret confession. Secret confession, primarily before public repentance, is the healing of each individual person, and therefore the nomocanons provide the best adaptation of penances to those goals that have already been indicated earlier. We have seen that according to the rules of Basil the Great, penance is healing, but the penances defined in these rules did not correspond much to the goal. The rules of Basil the Great know only one type of penance - excommunication from Holy Communion for long periods. In the nomocanons of the Postnikov type, the time of excommunication from communion is very significantly reduced, but for this, a special kind of life is determined for those who bear penance. Those who repent and bear penance are given a special fast, bows, prayers and other pious deeds. The nomocanon gives a detailed description of three types of penitential discipline. “There are three differences in food and drink regarding the penances of penitent women and men, and they accept one of the three at will” (Nomocanon, Georgian text, p. 62). All three types of penances according to the nomocanon of the Faster are very lenient (See pp. 64–69), so that at the end of the presentation of the statutes on food, the compiler reasons like this: “I know that for these very lenient definitions I will be judged by our common judge - God, but it is better for me to be condemned for this than to be glorified as unmerciful” (Nomocanon, pp. 69, 72). The condescending tendency of the Postnikov nomocanon was approved by many already in ancient times. “But no one,” writes Nikon the Montenegrin, “seems to be beloved in the prohibitions of this saint: cutting off sin and not doing it, having entered under the yoke of Christ and working His commandments, does not require great prohibitions, all crucified with passions and lusts according to the Divine Apostle” (Pandects, Homily 56). But Nicholas the Grammar, in response to the question of the Athonite monks: “Should penance be imposed according to the nomocanon of the Faster?” - answered: “This nomocanon, characterized by extreme condescension, has ruined many; however, those who have a consciousness of goodness, those, despite the reasons and stumbling blocks given by this book, will be directed to a better way of life” (see A. S. Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, pp. 22-23). Nevertheless, two features of the Postnikov nomocanon - the appointment of penances in the form of fasting and prayer and the softening of penitential discipline - very well characterize the views of this type of nomocanon on the essence of repentance. The penitential system of John the Faster, assigning abstinence and pious deeds as penance for one period or another, is directly aimed at healing morally sick members of the Church. Defining this kind of penance, the nomocanon of John the Faster obviously looks at it as healing, and at the same time, repentance is directed towards only one goal - to heal the sinner and quickly return him to full church communion. With different views on the meaning of repentance and penance, the entire penance system proposed in the nomocanon of John the Faster would hardly be necessary and possible. A general softening of penitential discipline is also possible only when looking at penance as a medicine that is significant only insofar as it is necessary and useful for the penitent himself. In the preface to the nomocanon of the Faster there is a historical outline of the softening of penitential discipline, and in this essay the idea is clearly expressed that penance has a close connection with the moral state of the penitent, and therefore it can change. So already Basil the Great, the “merciful ruler,” granted much leniency so as not to bring those who sinned to despair. After this, other fathers who followed reduced the number of years of repentance. The good Lord determined all this because he saw how people became weak in the fight against sin (Page 10–11). In addition, the Georgian edition notes: “He does not cultivate those who have sinned for the sake of anger, but with great mercy and goodness he facilitates repentance for sins” (Page 10). “For all this ineffable goodness of the Lord our God, great glory to His wonderful love for mankind” (Page 12). This is why the nomocanon condemns those who, in order to appear to be steadfast practitioners of the gospel, place penance above man, so that man becomes created for penance. “Many, through ignorance, instead of healing, brought more harm and, through excessive severity of penances, made the ulcers of sick souls more incurable” (P. 12–13). If, therefore, the nomocanon connects penance with the personality of the penitents, then it is clear that strict or weak penance, in his opinion, should be prescribed depending not on sin, but on the moral state of the individual. The one receiving the confession should not look at either the severity or the multitude of sins. There are people who have sinned little, but are zealous in repentance. Such people can be given a more severe penance. By performing this penance, the penitent will not only be healed of sins, but through pious deeds will achieve some positive results. The Lord will reward him for his zeal. There are also people who have sinned a lot, but are careless and weak. It is better to give such people a lighter penance so that they receive at least some benefit. Strict penance for such people can only be harmful - with its severity it can harden the penitent and turn him away from repentance (Nomocanon, pp. 70–72). Penance for repentance is prescribed by the confessor, but he appoints it with the consent of the penitent. When assigning penance, the confessor is not a strict and formidable judge, punishing on behalf of God for the sin of a repentant criminal; no, according to the nomocanon of John the Faster, and when assigning penance, the spiritual father is still the same loving father and friend of the repentant. The description of the very purpose of penance in the nomocanon is so typical that it does not need any comments. This is the description translated from Greek. "And then he raises him up, kisses him as if he were his own soul, if possible, lays his hand on his neck, telling him that from now on, brother, let all this be on me, and especially if he sees him immersed in great sadness, and after that he sits down with him and asks him with an affectionate look, which of the three clans he would like to take penance. But first of all, be in good hope for him in everything, and give him, first of all, a testament: if anything happens to you from now on to do evil, everything will be with me." Confess with a joyful soul, wherever I am” 4. The Georgian text adds that the question of what kind of penance a penitent can perform relates only to prayer and fasting; excommunication from Communion is given in accordance with sins (Nomocanon, p. 74). Here two types of penance are clearly distinguished: excommunication and pious deeds. The first is necessary as a consequence of sin, and feats aimed exclusively at healing sin are assigned according to the strength of the repentant, and not according to the comparative severity of the sin. “It is not because a hedgehog wants to eat that he must forbid a prohibition, nor a blind hedgehog befits, but a hedgehog chooses to preserve what is forbidden: because sinful unrighteousness is given by those who are good-hearted and Christ-like and able to judge well... prohibitions are given” (Gorchakov, op. cit., p. 74. Migne, PG., t. 88, col. 1926 sqq.). Elsewhere in the nomocanon it is positively stated that whoever is unable or unwilling to perform full penance, let him perform half of it; whoever cannot do half of it, let him do the third part (Nomocanon, pp. 68–69). If penance, as can be seen from the above, is medicine, then it should be applied only as long as a person is sinfully sick. One cannot think that in order to be healed from sin it is necessary to repent within a certain period of time. The time of repentance defined in the canons is completely unnecessary. “It is not by the accuracy of divine rules that penances are determined, but by the qualities of a person” 5 . One will not heal even for a long time; another can be cleansed of sin in a short time. At this point, the nomocanon of John the Faster is in full agreement with the rules of Basil the Great. The compiler of the Nomocanon quotes the 84th rule of Basil, according to which one should look not at the time, but at the image of repentance, and continues: he who has received from the man-loving God the power to bind and decide has the power to shorten the time of penance and for this does not deserve condemnation, because in the Holy Scripture we know that he who confesses with great zeal is more likely to receive forgiveness (Nomocanon, pp. 76–79). Thus, the canonical view of the Orthodox Church on the essence of repentance, according to which it is only healing for a sinfully sick soul, this view is fully retained in the nomocanon of John the Faster. The Nomocanon only reveals in more detail the meaning of penances and gives more instructions to the confessor, and the compiler himself stipulates that he gives these instructions from his personal experience. In general terms and in principle, the penitential discipline of the nomocanon of John the Faster is the same as that which was defined by St. Basil the Great and canonized by the Trull Cathedral. Prof. A. S. Pavlov notes that the similarity between the penitential nomocanon and the conciliar rule sometimes becomes almost literal. The famous canonist gives a brief parallel between the nomocanon and the canon, after which he poses a question that is not resolved by it: did the council have a nomocanon (anonymous or with the name of John the Faster), or, on the contrary, did the author of the nomocanon follow the conciliar canon 6? Prof. N.S. Suvorov refuted in detail the parallel given by Pavlov (On the issue of Western influence p. 110–130), but if there is no literal coincidence between the nomocanon and the conciliar rule, then the nomocanon nevertheless coincides with the rule in its view of repentance and the purpose of penances: penance is not something self-sufficient, but it is a medicine prescribed in accordance with the condition of the sinner. Nomocanon of John the Faster, whose views on repentance we have outlined, can be called the most typical penance nomocanon of the Eastern Church. This nomocanon even had great practical significance. Balsamon says about his time that most confessors impose penances according to the nomocanon of John the Faster (Interpretation of the 11th answer of Patriarch Nicholas to some monks. Migne, PG., t. 138, col.949). Matthew Vlastari and Constantine Armenopoul cite excerpts from the Postnikov nomocanon along with the generally accepted rules of St. fathers. In addition, Vlastar made an extensive extract of this nomocanon, which he placed at the end of his alphabetical syntagma (A.S. Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, p. 23). Vlastar’s review even received ecclesiastical authority and, translated into modern Greek, was published in the Pidalion, and hence in the Exomologitarion (a guide to confession and the confessional rite), so that in the Greek Church, modern confessors are given the, albeit abbreviated, edition of Postnikov’s Nomocanon as a guide for performing repentance and imposing penances. Vlastar's abbreviation of Postnikov's nomocanon is also placed in the famous Athens “Syntagma of the Divine and Sacred Canons”, published by Rally and Potli (Pavlov, p. 24). Already in the very first times of Christianity among the Slavic peoples, the nomocanon of Fasting appears in the Slavic language. Even in the 12th century, the nomocanon of the Faster was used by ancient Russian confessors, as can be seen from the famous “beliefs” of Kirik. Kirik, in his conversation with Nifont, refers many times to the nomocanon of the Faster: “This is written in the commandment of John the Faster,” “and what is written in the commandment of John the Faster,” “it is written in the commandment of John the Faster,” “as it is written in Ivan’s commandment” (Questions 71, 78, §3 and 95. Russian Historical Library. T. VI. St. Petersburg, 1880, st. 42, 45, 46, 50). The Nomocanon of John the Faster was included in the ancient Bulgarian helmsman, lists of which are available in the ancient Russian helmsmen, namely in Ustyug (Manuscript of the Library of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 230) and in Joasaphovskaya (Manuscript of the Library of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 54). In ancient Russian penance literature, the name of John the Faster was the most popular. Collections of all kinds of rules that did not belong to him were often inscribed in the name of John the Faster. Finally, according to prof. A.S. Pavlova, and the nomocanon under the Great Trebnik is nothing more than a special edition of the book of the Faster. The Trebnik contains the first part of this book, which contains the “rite of passage” of confession, along with instructions to the confessor on how to receive and ask penitents, how to impose penances on them. The penance nomocanon itself at the Great Trebnik constantly quotes the rules of John the Faster (Articles 29, 39, 59, 64, 72, 74, 144, 186, 187). In the 16th century, Greek canonists and confessors did not call this nomocanon anything other than Postnikov (Prof. Pavlov, op. cit., p. 26. 30–31). Consequently, the official modern nomocanon of the Russian Church stands in close connection with the nomocanon of John the Faster. Thus, we have every right to call the nomocanon of John the Faster the most characteristic of church views on the essence of repentance. Under the influence of the ideas of Postnikov's nomocanon, the repentant practice of the Orthodox Church was formed, the repentant psychology of sinners and repentants was formed, the relationship of spiritual fathers to their spiritual children was established, and in general a warm and gracious atmosphere of church-folk life was created, striving to please God and save the soul. III. Repentance according to the views of ancient Russian confessors To characterize the views on repentance of the Old Russian confessors, we have quite rich and varied material in the Old Russian penitential literature, which came out from among the confessors themselves and was created under the ideological influence of the nomocanon of John the Faster. This last nomocanon, in the form in which it appears in the most ancient editions, was not very convenient for practical use. It provided, as we have already said, only general ideological guidance for confessors, but such guidance in all cases could only be used by experienced, sensible confessors who had well mastered the general spirit of the nomocanon without embarrassment. As for confessors of a different kind, who, one must think, were the majority, then for them there was a need for more detailed guidance, giving instructions specifically in relation to particular cases of confessional practice (Prof. A. I. Almazov. Secret Confession, Vol. 1, p. 77). It is not surprising, therefore, that in practice a lot of all kinds of penances were addressed. However, Professor A.I. Almazov argues that Greek penitentiaries are not nearly as diverse as they are generally believed to be. Actually, only the particulars in these penitentiaries have diversified, and as for the editions themselves, it is apparently impossible to count a significant number of them (Secret Confession, Vol. 1, p. 195). The question arises: to what extent did the later penance nomocanons preserve the same view of the meaning of repentance and the meaning of penances as was in the nomocanon of John the Faster in the most ancient editions? Before answering this question, a few points need to be made. The nomocanon of John the Faster, which we examined, has a clearly expressed view of the essence of repentance, and this is because it is not a nomocanon in the proper sense, but represents the rite of confession. After all, it is often not called nomocanon, but “order”, “following”. It contains not only a list of penances, but also quite a few considerations of a fundamental nature. The same cannot be said about other, later, in particular Russian, nomocanons. True, in many monuments there is an inextricable connection between the confessional rite and the nomocanon, so that these rites, together with the penance books attached to them, constitute a special book of a liturgical and canonical nature, to which the Greek name “exomologhtarion” is most appropriate (See Almazov, vol. 1, pp. 133, 195, 481–490). But in penance and penitential literature in general, the desire to separate liturgical material from canonical material in the strict sense is also very noticeable (A. Almazov. Canonary of Monk John, p. 144), so that many later penance nomocanons represent only a bare list of specific cases of sinfulness and penances appropriate to each case. If we pay attention to such nomocanons, we will have to almost completely refuse to answer the question posed. Such penancers have no view of the meaning of penances. It is therefore necessary to find out how all these penance books were viewed by those people who used them, in whose hands these nomocanons deteriorated; otherwise, we can easily impose on penance holders views that no one has ever held. We must bring into discussion the so-called additional articles of the rite of confession, various pre- and post-confessional teachings, as well as, in general, historical and canonical monuments of the ancient Russian penitential discipline, where the sighs of the penitents, the sorrow and joy of the confessor are preserved, where from the distance of centuries the aroma of the ancient Russian system of the church folk soul, brought up on the nomocanons under the leadership of the Orthodox Church, is fragrant. Here you can find still fresh paints for painting a picture of the ancient Russian confessor. Here are not the products of school, but the products of life itself; here everything is not composed, but directly poured out of a soul thirsting for salvation, cleansing from the filth of sin. When you read ancient Russian penitential literature, not only a sympathetic, but downright gracious image of a “spiritual father” emerges in your mind. How does the ancient Russian confessor look at his work? In ancient handwritten collections one often encounters “a message from a certain father to a spiritual son,” and this is how the ancient Russian confessor himself talks about his calling. "Weigh, son, God has given me a talent, even though I am unworthy; he wants to torture me, a sinner, from me, a sinner, at His terrible judgment. The same talent, taking care of your souls, sows the divine seed into your hearts and uproots the thorns of sin from you. Whenever I see you walking in the law of the Lord, my heart rejoices. Whenever I see you you transgress the commandments of the Lord, then sadness consumes me” (Prof. S.I. Smirnov. Materials for the history of the ancient Russian penitential discipline. Moscow 1912, pp. 195, 197). "I am not seeking praise for myself when I say to you, but that there were salvations of nature, and in that I had great joy. How I grieve for you all the days, because there is only one God. Have faith in me, I do not worry about my salvation as much as I do about yours. When I see you living in evil, then I will forget my joy and cry for you; and when I hear you doing good, then I will forget my evil, I am my natural friend. I am happy about your goodness; I am sad about your evil" (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 201). And who is so hard-hearted that he is able not to be moved by the following outpourings of his confessor in the teaching under the name of John Chrysostom in the "Golden Chain" of the 14th century from the library of the Trinity Lavra? "We teach you by God's grace, continually shedding tears for you and our hearts ache for you; Even if we don’t show it, we still have that disease in our hearts... Have faith in us, for I have despaired of my salvation and I weep for the evil of those who live you, and your evil has not been abolished and weep and cry, tolma me naturally. If I hear you doing good, then I do not remember my evil with sweetness and joy, and I am a lot of my evil. I am decrepit about your evil... Fathers have great pain for their children and pity and sadness... and you don’t know how much a spiritual parent would like to be cut into many pieces, rather than see their sons perishing in their evil deeds... If only it were possible for my heart to be healed, to show you repentance, then you would soon see all of you sitting inside me, with your wives and children. Such is the power of the loving force of heaven to create the soul and place the womb in us” (S. Smirnov. Materials, pp. 203–205. Here he is, the ancient Russian confessor, his heart aching for the spiritual perfection of his spiritual children! His image is that of a loving father. In his confessional teaching he addresses: “my dear spiritual child” (Almazov. Secret Confession, Vol. III, p. 250). And it was instilled in the confessors themselves: “it is a good thing to be a father of a child, to be merciful, meek, humble” (Starine, ed. Yagich. Knjiga VI, and Zagrebu 1874, p. 129). (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 137). “A dignified and proud priest, a hard-drinking, rude, unreasonable priest, is not worthy of being a priest, nor is he worthy of receiving spiritual children for teaching, nor is he worthy of confessing to such. If he cannot teach himself, how can he teach someone else” (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 139). It is quite clear that the confession of the ancient Russian confessor was the work of a tenderly loving father. He could be strict. One of the Moscow princes admitted that when he went to his confessor Paphnutius Borovsky, his knees trembled. But this severity also stemmed from the confessor’s concern for the salvation of his son. But usually in all ancient Russian penitential monuments, confessors are commanded to treat confessors with tender, loving, affectionate treatment. Archbishop Elijah of Novgorod in the 12th century inspired his priests to “ask quietly” (A. Pavlov. Unpublished monument of Russian church law of the 12th century. Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, part 271, p. 288). The same can be seen in various confessional rites. The well-known “Preface to Repentance” prescribes to confess “with a quiet face and a meek heart, and cheerful” (Russian Historical Library. T. VI, p. 840. A. Almazov. Secret Confession, T. III, p. 265), “with love and quietness, and humility” (Rite of Confession. Almazov, T. III, pp. 114, 115. 184), “quietly and tenderly” (Confession of a worldly man. Almazov. III, p. 133). The person confessing does not come to the court, but to the doctor's office. The essence of repentance is healing. One of the healing remedies, the most important, is penance, which is especially discussed in penitential literature. Penance is a cure, not a punishment. Once upon a time Rev. Theodore the Studite wrote as an instruction to the monks: "Whoever turns out to be guilty is subject to penance. Do not think, however, that this will be from anger and irritation. No, I did and will do this, moved by love for you" (Philokalia, Vol. 4. Moscow 1889. p. 130). Old Russian authors talk about penance in a similar way. “If we confess our iniquities to the Lord and to our spiritual father, may he add us to health in the past, let us be bound by penances until the time until there is no more ulcer, and then allow it; consider what success will be in the commandments of God” (Orthodox Interlocutor, 1861.v. 1, p. 455), “and they will become healthy and bright in saints of the Church of God and before God our Lord Jesus Christ, having received permission from the bondage of selfishness and sinful ulcers” (S. Smirnov. Materials pp. 35–39, 170). “Similar to this, as if in the army you shoot a man, and the arrow breaks in him, and when they bring a doctor to him, then, having cut the ulcer, he will remove the iron... So, when you commit a sin, you are shot by the devil, and the sin is in you like iron, and if you confess to your father, the father, like a cunning doctor, will remove sin from you like iron and He will begin to heal the ulcer with penance” (Orthodox Interlocutor. 859, Vol. 1, p. 133). "A spiritual father, like a cunning doctor, must seek the canon to the confessor who has decided the rule, and having considered giving the commandment. Oh, priest, look, diligently, about this and with your mind, listen!" (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 165. Compare manuscript of the Volokolamsk Library No. 566, l. 103). “About penance, Metropolitan Peter teaches the clergy, who the holy fathers gave to us for salvation, to give to sinners for the cleansing of sins” (Russian Historical Library, Vol. VI, column 161). Since penance is medicine, it must be prescribed in accordance with the moral qualities of the sinner. According to penance teachers, according to the teachings, the confessor must give the confessor penance “according to strength” (Starine, VI, 119, 130–131. S. Smirnov. Materials, pp. 71, 173–174, 181, 217, 218, 221, 231, 237). The same thing is sometimes repeated in confessional questions (Almazov. Secret Confession. vol. III p. 145). “It is not proper to give a commandment against sin but to those who deign to keep it” (Materials, p. 158). As a medicine, penance should be given “with reasoning,” “according to his (the penitent’s) deeds and repentance and property” (Russian Historical Library, VI, st. 860, 864, 865. Almazov. T. III, p. 269), “and according to his virtuous life” (Russian Historical Library, T.VI, st. 861), “and according to human weakness” (Almazov. T III, p. 267). “The Rule on Church Organization” advises “to examine the penitents in every way, to torture everything: whether someone is rich, poor, a slave, free, a craftsman, a servant, weak, or in extreme poverty” (S. Smirnov. Materials, pp. 90–91, 102. Almazov. T. III, pp. 267, 269). Even more attention should be paid to the properties of human moral nature. Metropolitan Cyprian wrote to Abbot Athanasius: “Gives penance according to age, and according to one’s disposition, and according to one’s reason: and one’s foolishness: otherwise the young man reasons, otherwise he who has come to age, otherwise he has sinned in old age, otherwise he is sensible, but otherwise senseless... everything is worthy of being tested and reason with the spiritual father” (Russian Historical Library, Vol. VI, column 246). “To the small sinner, give the great commandment, so that he may not only receive remission of sins, but also receive an incorruptible crown” (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 158). “And to the lazy man who has many sins, let him not be overwhelmed by burdens and, having been sad, leave everything” (Materials, p. 166), “not in summer is repentance judged, but by love, as the divine Chrysostom said” (p. 167). Archbishop Elijah teaches: “Do not bother to give difficult commandments, nor do they reduce it to weakness without reasoning.” “As for food and drink, judge by the person how it will be: he will be strong, but give him a great commandment, so that not only will he be freed from sin, but he will also receive a crown; and if anyone is weak, give a false (easier) commandment, he will not fall into despair” (Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, part 271, p. 288, 290. Compare Almazov. Secret Confession. T. III, p. 269). Penance in general is not a strictly defined punishment for sin: you can “pay less, so that he does not fall into despair” (Almazov. T. III, p. 109). The assignment of penances should be gradual; severe penance cannot be imposed immediately. Even in Ilyin’s “asking” we read: “and there will be many sins, then I was not ordered to give it away, but something is small, but he will learn it; also give it little by little, and not greatly aggravate it” (Russian Historical Library, Vol. VI, p. 59). Since the only purpose of penances is healing, in ancient handwritten missals we encounter teachings where confessors are instructed not to forget this very purpose of penances and to create some kind of educational system out of repentance and the purpose of penances. "If you invest too much into a ship, it will get bogged down and your property will be ruined. Likewise, if we give a great commandment, they, in despair, will not do anything less and the foolish brother will perish in your foolishness, for whom Christ died. But first, like giving milk to a baby, so we first give the repentant. Give him a small commandment, and little by little he comes to reason. Then Give a great commandment according to their sin, and they themselves will have it in their minds and having considered their cruelty, they will begin to do good - God’s commandments” (Almazov. T. III, p. 269, Starine, VI, 129). Sometimes penance nomocanons are inscribed like this: “lawyer or healer of sins” (Almazov. Vol. III, p. 285). This inscription is very significant from a fundamental point of view. The “legislator” itself is nothing more than a list of sins and penances, but the above inscription shows how one should look at the assigned penances and what purpose to pursue when assigning them. This goal is medicine. In the same way, the official nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, in appearance, is like a code that determines what kind of penance should be for what sin. Apparently, the whole matter comes down to the legal regulation of penances for known sins. But this is only apparent; a legal code could not be developed from the nomocanon of John the Faster. Even if the nomocanon resembles a legal code, it is important how one treats such a nomocanon, and this attitude is very well defined in the prefaces to ancient editions of the nomocanon. Thus, in the preface to the “sacred reader” in the first Kiev edition of the Nomocanon (7128/1620), “unworthy and considered in Hieromonas Pamvo Berynda” - this “arch-typographer of the Russian Church” - writes: “Receive this Nomocanon with gratitude, as if it were no adviser: to bear you the womb of your father and careful, to consider the correction of promises, in the fall of man” (Prof. A. S. Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, p. 219). In the preface to the second Kyiv edition, Hieromonk Zechariah Kopystensky writes: "This Nomocanon contains remembrance and teaching, how to come to the priesthood, how to receive and correct the confessions of those who come, what healing to do to each person and the healing of taxes. Three in it are the essence of obsessive guilt. The first is a doctor, who is also a spiritual father. The second is - those who are ill, who are sinners and repentant. The third - there were healing, that is, punishments and prohibitions. This Nomocanon is a short collection of canons and reasonings of the holy fathers, a mentor and teacher as a confessor, and a physician for the penitent” (A. S. Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, p. 222). Very detailed discussions about “what kind of healing is given to sinners who repent” and “colic lips is a sin” are in the third edition, in the preface. The general idea here is that “there is a duty for everyone wounded by the sins of decent healing” (Baron Rosenkampf. Review of the helmsman’s book in historical form. Moscow, 1829. Notes, pp. 70–77). These prefaces are very important in principle; they show that, although the nomocanon presents only a list of sins and penances, all these penances should be looked at only as medicines. According to the ancient Russian monuments of penitential literature, the penitent was supposed to look at penance as a useful medicine for him, and not as a bitter and offensive punishment. Another Rev. Theodore the Studite wrote in his instructions to the monks: “love penance and the application of obedience to handicrafts, in the confidence that those administering this have your benefit in mind.” “When penance is imposed, be complacent, cheerful and get down to business with great zeal.” “As everything is directed towards the salvation of our souls, it should be sweet, easy and convenient for us” (Philokalia, T 4, pp. 151, 186, 75, 168). We encounter exactly the same reasoning in ancient Russian penitential literature. “And take penance in that sin against sins with joy” (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 237). “And accept the penance of your son and master with joy” (S. Smirnov. Old Russian confessor. Appendix, p. 106). “The priest is a wise teacher who knows how to heal your sinful ulcers and make you without sorrow” (Ibid., p. 103). Only one who does not understand his own benefit can resist penance (Apostolic Question. S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 152). And the confessor, when prescribing penance, should feel nothing but love for his spiritual son. In one nomocanon of the 14th century there is even such an article: “if a priest gets involved with a person’s anger, he will be absent for 7 days” (S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 137). The confessor is instructed to “comfort him (the penitent), so as not to grieve him, but to rejoice and trust in God” (Almazov. Secret Confession, Vol. III, pp. 109, 131). "And he lets him go joyfully, punishingly and gratifyingly. He departs joyfully bowing" - this is how one confessional rite ends (Almazov, T. III, p. 117)! This is, so to speak, a worthy final chord of repentance. All repentance is performed in the spirit of love, the tender paternal care of the confessor and the firm determination of the penitent to change his life. In the manuscripts preserving the monuments of the ancient Russian penitential discipline, there are many dry lists of sins and penances, but among this material from the yellowed sheets of the manuscript, in some teaching or accidentally dropped phrase, a touching sincere note will sometimes ring out, which puts before the reader as a living ancient Russian penitent soul. A view of the essence of repentance that is completely consistent with the ancient church canonical rules, a filial attitude towards God and the confessor speaking on His behalf, a gracious atmosphere of love - this is what characterizes the church psychology of repentance. Penance is recognized as necessary, as a consequence of sin, excommunication from communion and a special feat prescribed for healing from sin and for improvement in virtue. We have traced the church's psychology of repentance over a whole millennium; she was always the same. This is the psychology of a person who longs for renewal of his old person and understands that this renewal is created only through the thorny path of struggle and achievement. The church psychology of repentance does not seek a path that would lie past the feat, but it is precisely through the deed that it seeks transformation into a “new creation.” IV. Repentance according to Latin penitentials Anyone who has spent some time reading ancient Russian penitential monuments and immediately begins to read Latin works of the same kind cannot fail to notice the great difference between the first and second in their general spirit, in their essential ideological content, in their view of the meaning and essence of repentance itself. Professor N.S. Suvorov pointed out the following distinctive features of the Latin penitentials: the order to fast on bread and water for a certain number of years out of the total period of repentance, the assignment of penances to clergy in accordance with their hierarchical degrees, repentance combined with expulsion from the region, the prohibition of clergy from conjugal cohabitation with their legal wives 7 . But these features are not significant. Much more important is the fundamental difference between Latin penitentiaries in their views on the meaning of repentance and the meaning of penances. First of all, Latin penitentials look at the penitent only as a guilty person who must be punished, and not be cured of his sinful illness. In penitentiaries, they constantly talk about crime, about guilt, about an insult to God that needs to be made up for. “Great is the guilt (crimen) of adultery and murder, but it can be redeemed (redmi) by repentance” (Poenitentiale Vinniai, § 12. S. 110) 8. “Great is the guilt of a false oath, which can hardly be redeemed or even cannot be redeemed at all; however, it is better to repent and not despair” (Poenit. Vinniai § 22. 5. 112). “Great is the guilt of destroying the soul, but it can be redeemed by repentance, because there is no guilt that cannot be redeemed by repentance while we are in this body” (Poenit. Vinniai § 47. 5. 118). Every sin is first of all called a crime, a guilt. The sinner arouses the wrath of God (Poenit. Pseudo-Egberti. S. 326). The case of the confessor is compared not only with the case of a doctor who uses various healing medicines in accordance with the variety of diseases, but also with the case of a judge who imposes different punishments for different crimes (Corrector Burchardi, cap. 183. S. 667. Poenit. Egberti. S. 231). At confession, therefore, a trial takes place, where the guilty person receives punishment for his sins (Poenit. Pseudo-Egberti, pp. 4. S. 319). The idea of ​​spiritual healing fades before the idea of ​​court: the confessor is not so much a doctor as a judge of the believer’s conscience - a judge who must cope with the Roman code in order to bring this or that offense under a certain article. Hence, the very penance from a medical plaster applied to the wound turns into satisfaction for sins, awarded by a spiritual judge." 9 Penance is needed to blot out sins (Poenit. Bedae. S. 220. Poenit. Pseudo-Romanum. S. 342). Latin penitentiaries often repeat that penance should be assigned according to the quality of the sin. The greater the sin, the greater the punishment. “One must know that how long someone has delayed in sins, his repentance should increase accordingly” (Poenit. Gildae. S. 106. Poenit. Cummeani. SS. 462–463. Poenit. Remense, pp. 2. S. 498, etc. “Let him repent in accordance with the quality). sin" (Poenit. Theodori § 4. S. 201). “The duration of repentance should be determined in accordance with the magnitude of sins" (Poenit. Colubani, sar. 1. SS. 353. 388). Even if in some penitentiaries there are short chapters “on the quality of people,” this does not mean that the confessor should heal everyone according to their moral state; no, the confessor must pay attention to the qualities of the persons confessing only in order not to impose an exorbitant punishment, as prudent judges do when determining judicial punishment (Poenit. Egberti. S. 231. Corrector Burchardi. SS. 667–668). In penitentiaries, no little space is given to the discretion of the confessor or bishop (see Wasserschleben, pp. 110, 152, 196, 198, 228, 241, 245, 272, 283,307, 426, 452, 570, 571, 634, 704, 727); however, along with this, in some penitentiaries the confessor is reminded that God is not only merciful, but also just (Poenit. Egberti. S. 231), and therefore the confessor must, when assigning penances, cope with the penitentiary so as not to violate justice. "Priests who listen to the confession of a penitent need knowledge of the canons. After all, everything that relates to the image of repentance should be determined not only by prudence and piety, but also by justice. This norm can be taken from the penitential rules" (Poenit. Mediolanense. S. 706). Together with the speech about the healing of souls, they sometimes even talk about vengeance for sins (Penit. Bigotianum. S. 443). Whoever has sinned with his body must suffer for it in his body, suffer punishment in the form of penance, fasting, standing and prayers to the Lord (Poenit. Egberti. cap. 14. S. 245. Poenit. Cummeani. S. 464). Therefore, the Latin penitentiaries do not so much provide guidance for recognizing the sinfulness of a person and prescribing appropriate healing, but rather present a code of all kinds of penances with which the confessor must punish sinners who have admitted their crimes. “Rules determine (taxant) repentance,” as the Mediolan Penitentiary puts it (Wasserschleben. S. 704). For serious sins, strict penance can be imposed, and if the punished sinner doubts, then he should be shown the penitentiary, which in this case is obviously considered as a legal code of punishments (Poenit. Mediolanense S. 704). If we pay attention to the very penances that are prescribed in the Latin penitentiaries, we will see that there are many penances of this kind that they are possible only when looking at repentance as a court and at penances as punishments. We come across quite a few penances in which there is absolutely no healing element and which, therefore, are punishments in the full sense of the word, similar to the punishments defined in any civil criminal code. Quite often, expulsion from the fatherland is prescribed as penance. The repentant must carry out penance during the pilgrimage (see Wasserschleben, pp. 103, 104, 186, 412, 506, 570, 712, 713, 718). The Merseburg Penitentiary compares the bearer of such penance even with Cain (Cap. 1. S. 391). Sometimes it is prescribed to leave everything earthly, go to a monastery and repent there until death (Poenit. Theodori. S. 191. Can. Gregorii § 98. S. 71. Poenit. Pseudo-Theodori, cap. 4. S. 570. Poenit. Medilanense. S. 716). The murderer is handed over to his parents and they are free to do with him what they want" (Can. Wallici, § 4. S. 125). Sometimes the sinner is ordered to be brought before a civil court; for example, in the case of the murder of a bishop or presbyter (Poenit. XXXV. Capitulorum. 1, 2. S. 506. Poenit. Pseudo-Gregorii III, cap. 3. S. 538). Corporal punishment is also used as penance. Flagellation is prescribed for the young and foolish (Poenit. Pseudo-Egberti, Lib. II, cap. 6. S. 324). In some cases (si fornicationem Faciunt inter semetipsos) the canons simply recommend flogging boys (Poenit. XXXV Capitulorum. X, 1. S. 512), sometimes determining the number of blows, for example, 200 - for fornication before legal marriage (Poenit. Vigilanum, cap. 171. S. 532. Poenit. Remense, § 19. S. 502). There are articles in penitentiaries taken from barbarian codes, in which for the murder of a bishop, prince or official the perpetrator is sentenced to crucifixion. This was supposedly determined by some wise men (Wasserschleben, p. 140). For theft from the same persons - a fine of seven maids (S. 141). The bishop's blood is valued at 50 maids (Can. Hibern. 2. S. 142). All this is spoken on behalf of a certain council (Synodus Hibernensis). Latin penitentials, like the Eastern nomocanons, also prescribe fasting as penances, but they clearly show a tendency to view fasting as a punishment, and not as a feat needed solely for the moral correction of a sinner. Sometimes this tendency is expressed in words; for example Poenit. Remense says: “Let him who fasts for 15 days crucify his stomach” (§ 20. S. 502). Whoever breaks the fast must fast ten times in one day (Poenit. Vigilanum, cap. 76. S. 532). Given the tendency to turn fasting into punishment, it becomes natural that Latin penitentiaries appoint cruel fasts that could really “crucify the stomach.” The form of fasting favored by Latin penitentiaries is fasting on bread and water for several years. This form of fasting passes positively through all Latin penitentials and is found in almost every article. Abstinence from meat and wine is also prescribed, or for a certain long period - up to 15 years! - term (Poenit. Viniai, § 18. S. 112. Poenit. Theodori, § 19. S. 186. Poenit. Egberti, cap. XI, § 4. S. 242. Poenit. Mediolanense. S. 723. Puenit. Paeudo-Bedae, cap. 2. S. 260), or even for the rest of life (Poenitl Mediolanense. S. 712). To this is added abstinence from marriage, if the penitent has not entered into it, and if he is already married, the period that must be spent without a wife is determined. It is commanded to walk exclusively. "Do not take a wife, do not have a concubine, remain forever without marriage. Never wash in the bathhouse, never sit at the feasts of those who rejoice, never use weapons, except against the pagans" (Poenit. Mediolanense. SS. 712. 715. Poenit. Pseudo-Bedae, Cap. 2. S. 260. Poenit, Pseudo-Romanum, VIII, 10. S. 370). Such forms of fasting and penance in general are possible only when looking at penance as a punishment. When imposing penances, some kind of cruelty is sometimes recommended. Here we will not find advice to ask the penitent what kind of penance is strong and acceptable to him. The Milan Penitentiary advises the confessor to list the possible punishments for the repentant and add: “There are many even more cruel ones that should be imposed on you due to the gravity of such an offense” (S. 715). By the cruelty of reprisals against sinners, Latin penitentiaries sometimes directly want to instill fear in others, “so that others may have fear” (Poenit. Egberti. Prologus. S. 233. Corrector Burchardi, cap. 133. S. 669). Such a strict penitential discipline, such as it is in the Latin penitentiaries, was, of course, not very convenient in practice, because it imposed an unbearable burden of punishment. The need to soften penitential discipline was clearly felt. Softening, as we have seen, was also made in the Church in the nomocanons of the Postnikov type. But the softening of penitential discipline in Catholicism was of a completely different kind precisely because of the view of repentance as an act of a legal nature. If every sin requires, so to speak, vengeance, then, obviously, it is impossible to add or reduce the penance - the truth of God will be violated. Therefore, in Catholicism, the fruit of the softening of penitential discipline was a system of replacement or redemption (redemptio) of penances. Sometimes penances imposed according to Latin penitentiaries are directly designed to ensure that the penitent will not bear penance. Sometimes penances were prescribed so long that they would be incomprehensible if they could not be replaced: there is a penance lasting 50 years (Can. Hibern. S. 142), and even a hundred-year penance is prescribed for simony (Herm. Ios. Schmitz. Die Bussbucher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. Mainz 1883. S. 149. Anm. 3). How can you carry out penance that you still won’t be able to finish? The Latin penitentiaries give many instructions on how to replace one or another long-term penance, how to perform a seven-year penance in one year. It is good if someone can perform penance as it is prescribed in the penitentiary; if he cannot - and later in some penitentiaries it was added: if he does not want to, then he can replace it with things more convenient for himself. It was left to the will of the penitent to carry out penance according to the penitentiary or, according to the same penitentiary, to replace it with something else (Schmitz. Die Bussbucher. S. 145). A long and exhausting fast on bread and water can be replaced by alms, reading or singing psalms and prayers, bowing, serving liturgies, even beating oneself, self-flagellation. A tax rate was created, as Schmitz puts it, for assessed penitential deeds (Die Bussbucher. S. 145). Instead of a feat, you can simply pay money, and a special fee was created - for which post how much to pay. The rich pay more, the poor pay less. The usual price is a denarius per day of fasting, 26 solids per year. Wholesale, so to speak, is cheaper. You can also hire one or more people to fast for yourself and generally do everything that you yourself must do as penance. In this way, penance can be dealt with easily and quickly. One must not think that all such instructions in penitentiaries are something rare or accidental. No, these instructions are an essential feature that runs through most Latin penitentials and characterizes their fundamental views on the meaning and essence of repentance and the purpose of penances. We find instructions on the ransom and replacement of penances in the following penitentiaries. In the penitentiary of Viniaus, three paragraphs are devoted to these instructions - §§ 28, 35, 36 (SS. 114, 116), one paragraph in the penitentiary of Theodore (VII, 5. S. 191), three chapters (10–12) in the penitentiary of Bede (SS. 229–230), two chapters (13 and 14) in the Egbert penitentiary. In the penitentiary of Pseudo-Bede we find the following spellings of chapters: Ch. 41 – about the redemption price; Ch. 42 – about the price of the month; Ch. 43–45 – about the price of a year or a day; Ch. 48 – how one can redeem with money, liturgies and psalms (55. 276–280). The first chapter of the Valicellian Penitentiary is inscribed: “How can we repent in seven years in one year.” (S. 547). The Penitential Cummeana discusses the kinds of penance, how the rich or powerful can atone for their sins (SS. 462–465). see also the penitential of Pseudo-Egbert, ch. 60–62 (SS. 340–341), penitentiary Sangerman S. 348), Gubertinsky ch. 9 and 24 (SS. 278–380), Merseburg a ch. 110 (S. 402), Floriatsen ch. 50 S. 425), Viennese b (SS. 495–496), Pseudo-Theodora (S. 622), Burchard's Corrector, ch. 30,50.186–200 (SS.637.642.671–673). We have provided this list to show how the ransom system permeates most Latin penitentiaries. According to these penitentiaries, penance is a judicial penalty, a punishment that can be replaced with a fine. If you don’t want to fast, pay with your wallet. The moral correction of the repentant person fades into the background - if legal truth were observed. Although the penitentials do not indicate self-cutting as a replacement for penitential deeds, self-cutting or flagelli disciplina, this ugly form of repentance, is a product of the same false legal view of the matter of repentance, which permeates all Latin penitentials. Dominic is considered the inventor of the discipline of self-cutting. According to his teaching, one year of repentance can be replaced by 300 blows when reading 10 psalms, and in order to fulfill penance at 100 years, one should inflict 15,000 blows on oneself when reciting the entire psalter (Again, there is a discount for a large number!). Dominic himself was such an expert in this matter that during one Lent, working with both hands, he managed to serve a thousand-year penance, inflicting 3,750 blows on himself a day, and a total of 150,000 (N. A. Zaozersky. Nomocanon of John the Faster, p. 72, note 2). The Catholic scholar Schmitz, fully aware of the harm of such penitential rules for a person’s moral life (Die Bussbucher. SS. 572, 605), however, tries to defend the Roman penitentiaries in the narrow sense of the word. Ransoms, he says, are a special property of the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic local churches, while in the penitentiaries of the Roman universal church there are instructions that instruct the priests to pay careful attention to the personal qualities of the penitent and to impose canonical punishments corresponding to these qualities, but there is no trace of a detailed statement of the general rules of ransom. On the contrary, in the Roman penitentiaries the determination is even constantly repeated that anyone who takes on the sins of others or fasts in place of another for payment should be excluded from church communion and is not worthy to be called a Christian (Poenit. Merseburgense, cap. 44. S. 396. Poenit. Vindobo-nense, cap. 48. S. 420). The penitentials of Raban the Maurus and Galtigar do not mention ransoms (Die Bussbucher. SS. 223, 149). But even in the Roman penitentiaries there are the makings of the doctrine of ransom (Merseburgense a, cap. 110. S. 402), and most importantly, they are imbued with the same legal understanding of life as the Anglo-Saxon and German penitentiaries, and even these latter only expressed in a sharper form those ideas that were learned from Rome. Finally, the Roman Church sanctified the legal view of the meaning of repentance and the meaning of penances by introducing it into its dogma and establishing the corresponding penitential practice. According to Catholic dogma, in confession the penitent is freed only from eternal punishment for sin (culpa et poena aeterna), but in order to satisfy the truth of God he must suffer temporary punishment on earth or in purgatory (see Ioannes Perrone. Praelectiones theologicae, vol. VI. Tractatus De poenitentia). The Council of Trent, canon 15, anathematizes those who deny the temporary punishment for sin after the punishment is removed by the power of the keys. “The priests of the Lord, the same council decided, must impose satisfactions (satisfactiones) according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the repentant... Let them have before their eyes that the satisfaction they impose serves not only to protect a new life and to heal weaknesses, but also to blot out previous sins and punish them... This the innovators do not want to understand, they teach that the best repentance is a new life, so they destroy every the meaning and use of satisfaction” (Sessio XIV. Cap. VII ad fin). The ecclesiastical authorities can lay down the punishment that weighs on a sinner, taking advantage of the merits of Christ and the saints, and all this is only an external matter; moral renewal is not required, just as it is not required from a criminal who is released from prison according to the manifesto. “In the Church there is a permanent treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints” (Perrone. Praelectiones theol. vol. VII. pp. 28. Sqq.). From this bank, as it were, the Latins give indulgences to confessors, saving them from the necessary punishment in the form of strict penance. The Latin penitentials, considering penance a punishment, are in full agreement with the heresy of indulgences they prepared, this cancer for faith and morality, as Overbeck puts it (The indisputable advantages of the Orthodox Catholic Church over all other Christian confessions. Christian Reading, 1883, Vol. 1, p. 63), and in poenitentiale Civitatense this is the doctrine of indulgences and expressed in a fairly clear and decisive form (cap. 147.S.704). Needless to say, the views on penance and repentance, at least of the Anglo-Saxon and German penitentiaries, as judgment and punishment that can be replaced or redeemed, these views are sanctified by the practice of Latinism of all centuries. Catholicism, which fell away from the Church, “established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, began to weigh sins and prayers, misdeeds and redemptive deeds on the scales, introduced transfers from one person to another, legalized the exchange of imaginary merits; in a word, it transferred the complete mechanism of a banking house to the sanctuary of faith” (A. S. Khomyakov. A few words from an Orthodox Christian about Western faiths - Works Theological, T.2. Prague, 1867, p. 49). While ancient Russian confessors wrote touching teachings to their spiritual children, Catholics published “Taxes of the Offices of the Roman Church.” Such taxes were published many times: in Rome in 1514, in Cologne in 1523, in Paris in 1533, 1545 and 1564, in Wirtemberg in 1538, in Venice in 1584, etc. Of course, one cannot read such paragraphs in these Catholic “taxes” without shuddering: “If two agree to kill one, they receive forgiveness for 134 lire 14 soldi” 10. “Whoever wishes to stock up on forgiveness in advance for any accidental murder that he may commit in the future pays 168 lire 15 soldi.” “For the murder of a father or mother or sister, 17 lire 14 soldi 6 denarii must be paid for forgiveness.” “A father and mother who strangled their child by mutual consent shall pay 26 lire 1 soldi.” “Whoever mutilated a cleric receives forgiveness for 63 lire and 14 soldi.” Currently, Catholics are ready to renounce such “taxes” in every possible way for the most serious sins. But Catholic penitential practice still follows the same path, bypassing virtue, achievement and moral improvement. Many of the manifestations of Catholic repentance at present can only serve as an amusing spectacle for the international crowd of tourists; However, a Catholic who believes in the Pope still hopes to receive salvation and forgiveness of sins through indulgences. This is what Professor V.A. writes. Kerensky, who observed Catholic life in the Eternal City. “Until now, the trade of indulgences is carried out next to the pope, carried out publicly in the numerous churches of Rome. The extent to which the Roman Curia reached the level of unceremoniousness can be judged from the following examples. Visiting one of the most famous churches in Rome - Sarella Sancta Sanctorum, located not far from the Lateran Palace, I saw in this chapel a rather high staircase along which believers were climbing on their knees, and near the stairs a large crowd of curious tourists looking at this strange, at first glance, phenomenon. My bewilderment, however, was resolved after I read the following indulgence pasted near the stairs, printed in Latin, Italian, German and French: “Pope Leo IX in 850 and Paschalis in 1100 promise the forgiveness of sins of 9 years for each of the 28 steps of this staircase, if only the believer has a bowed head, a contrite heart and with memories of the suffering of Jesus Christ will ascend this ladder...” (From the West. Essays on modern Western church life. Orthodox Interlocutor. 1912, September, pp. 420–421). If, on the basis of everything that has been said, we were now to pronounce a decisive judgment on the relationship between the Latin penitentials and church penance nomocanons, then we would do so prematurely and would be unfair. The fact is that in later church nomocanons there are elements that smooth out their fundamental opposition to the Latin penitentials (see Prof. A.I. Almazov. Canonary of Monk John, pp. 144–146). That is why we must consider and evaluate these elements of legal understanding in church penance nomocanons. V. Deviations from the canonical understanding of repentance in penance nomocanons "The Old Russian confessor's idea of ​​penance (and therefore repentance) diverged significantly from the Church's view of it. He considered this means of spiritual healing to be a legal act, completely external" (S. Smirnov. Old Russian confessor, p. 81). Such a general statement is undoubtedly incorrect, as can be seen from what was said above about the views of ancient Russian confessors on repentance. However, one cannot help but admit that in some nomocanons and other monuments of church penitential writing there are instructions, reasoning and penances that are possible only with a legal view of the entire matter of repentance, the purpose of penances as judicial punishment. So Bishop Nifont, in response to Elijah’s question: “Even if they are murderers and do not have lawful wives, how can they keep them intoxicated? - He did not command, they will make you young; and they will get married again and grow old, too, saying, give intoxication” (Russian Historical Library, Vol. 6, column 59). Consequently, penance can be transferred from youth to old age. The same bishop in conversation with. Kirikom allowed “his wife to help her husband endure drug addiction, or her husband to help his wife” (R.I.B.T 6, column 50). Pechersk monks, out of love for each other, shared the penance of the sinned brother in threes or four (S. Smirnov. Old Russian confessor, p. 82, note 3). The “Golden Chain”, manuscript of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 214, says: “If the sin is serious, then two or a trio will copulate and overcome it” (S. Smirnov. Materials for the history of ancient Russian penitential discipline, p. 157). In one very widespread rule according to ancient Russian manuscripts, it is directly prescribed: “If anyone is in the pit, it is worthy of the weight of the family to fast, helping the eldest, if there are children or brothers, there is goodness” (Smirnov. Materials, p. 68). In the Greek nomocanon published by Cotelier, there is even the following article (69): “If anyone, either a priest or anyone else, takes a gift to perform repentance, and does not do it in a timely manner, let him do double repentance” (Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta, t. 1, pp. 80–81). This also includes the advice to “divide sin into three parts for a spiritual child: the first part is for the merciful God, the second part is for the priest, and the third part is for the repentant” (Manuscript of the Volokolamsk Library No. 560, l. 59 vol. No. 566, l. 103 vol., and 478 vol. Yagich. Starine, VI, 130). Sometimes, however, this advice is supplemented as follows: “If the confessor retains his (part) and then the priest will add a second, a third to it” (Smirnov. Materials, p. 165). It seems that there is no particular need to prove that all such phenomena are possible only with an outwardly legal understanding of repentance and penance. In Eastern penances one can also find the “fast on bread and water” characteristic of Latin penitentials. Professor A.S. Pavlov indicated the formula six times in Cotelier’s nomocanon: he will repent on bread and water (Articles 159, 162, 168, 169, 170, 171) and four similar formulas in the penance rules issued by Pitra (Imaginary traces... Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. p. 707). We came across this same formula four times in penance books published by Professor A.I. Almazov (Secret Confession. Vol. III, pp. 38, 147, 162) and up to nine times in the “Materials” of Professor S.I. Smirnova (pp. 53, 54, 101, 242–243). In the “rule of the saints on penances” according to the 16th-century handwritten collection of the Volokolamsk Library No. 560, there is even such a “penance”: “and cut their nose” (Almazov. T. 111, p. 283). Some types of ransoms or replacement penances can also be found in Eastern penance books. In the rule of the Council of Chalcedon according to the Collection of the XIV-XV centuries of the Kirill-Belozersky Monastery we read: “If anyone cannot drink, let him sing Psalms 47; if he does not know how, let him give some silver; if he does not have tsata, let him give him from the waste” (Smirnov. Materials, p. 243). But permission to replace penance with the service of liturgies is especially common. In Cotelier’s nomocanon we read (p. 323): “On all sins of the liturgy, the crown of heaven, the forgiveness of all sins and the resolution of falls, the hope of eternal life and blessed are those who live and do them” (Eccl. gr. Monum. t. 1. p. 128). There are several other articles in this nomocanon that approve the service of liturgies for the atonement of sin (see pp. 268, 279, 438; pp. 1 16, 1 18, 139). In the manuscript of the Helmsman of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 233 there is “the commandment and statutes of the holy fathers 300 and 18, like those in Nikoi” (l. 332). In this article, written in Polish-Russian, we read: “Be aware... 10 liturgies will be delivered from sins in 4 months of fasting, 20 liturgies in 8 months of fasting, 20 liturgies in 12 months of fasting, i.e. for a year, 30 liturgies, 15 psalms, for a psalter 5 pieces of silver, for a liturgy 2 dinars... for 12 days of fasting there is one liturgy, for a day of fasting 56 “Our Father” or 200 throwings, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us.” Psalter 10 for the summer of fasting, psalter for 2 liturgies" (Smirnov. Materials, p. 159). Similar instructions with the same value of fasting and liturgies are found in the 15th century handwritten breviary of the Sofia Library No. 838 (Almazov, vol. III, p. 136), in the manuscript of the Synodal Library No. 153 (Smirnov. Materials, p. 31), in the 16th-century “Golden Chain” of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 214 and in the 16th-century Canon of the same Lavra No. 365, in the Serpukhov collection of 1645 (S. Smirnov. Materials, pp. 157, 158, 164), in the collection of the Synodal Library No. 321 vol. (Gorsky and Nevostruev. Description of Slavic manuscripts, 11, 3. Moscow, 1862, p. 625), in the manuscript of the Volokolamsk Library No. 566 l. 481 and No. 576 l. 260 vol., in the penance book of Grigorovich (Russian Historical Library, 7. 6, column 44 note), in “Commandments and Rules of the Saints Father 318”, ed. Yagich (Starine, VI, 129). The list we have given of the rules known to us regarding the replacement of penances with the service of liturgies shows that these rules were quite widespread. Instead of a year of fasting, you can serve 30 liturgies, and in another year another 30 liturgies. “Those who pray can be treated like this,” some monuments add (manuscript of the Volokolamsk library No. 576, l. 260 volume. Almazov. T. III, p. 136. Smirnov. Materials, p. 31). It is impossible not to see that the evidence we have cited completely contradicts the fundamental views we discussed above of the Eastern and, in particular, Old Russian nomocanons on the essence of repentance as the healing of a painful conscience. It should be noted that the significance of such evidence should not be overestimated in the first place. There are comparatively very few of them. Regarding, for example, fasting on bread and water, one can agree with Professor Suvorov that, despite the evidence cited by Professor Pavlov, his position that the formula “on bread and water,” generally speaking, is unknown to Eastern nomocanons, remains in full force. If it is said about Western penitentiaries that they are characterized by this formula, then this means that there is no need to look for this formula in them, so to speak, day in and day out, and count how many times it is used, because on every page and almost on every line it catches the eye by itself (On the issue of Western influence, p. 35. Traces of Western Catholic influence, p. 12, note 17). A few lines scattered in a heap of manuscripts do not change the general ideological spirit of the Eastern penance nomocanons, according to which repentance and penance are medicine. The expressions we have cited, with a tinge of legal understanding of repentance, stand in Eastern nomocanons as something alien, inspired from somewhere outside. Indeed, in part we can see here an echo of the same Latinism. It is known that the Bulgarian Church had relations with Rome in the second half of the 9th century, when the Bulgarians turned to Pope Nicholas I, among other things, with a request to send them a guidebook for the imposition of repentance, and the pope sent such a book (See Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum. 75. Migne, Patrologiae, cursus completus, Series latina, t. 119, col. 1008). After the polemics between professors Suvorov and Pavlov on the issue of Western influence on ancient Russian law, it can be considered established that in ancient times the Merseburg Penitentiary was translated into Slavic in an abbreviated form and inscribed: “The Commandment of the Holy Fathers.” Discovered by Heitler in a Glagolitic manuscript of the 10th century in Sinai, this “Commandment” was first published in 1882, and a new edition was made by Professor Beneshevich in 1908. This “Commandment” of Latin origin was included in the ancient Bulgarian helmsmen, one of which was the Ustyug one of the 13th century. – manuscript No. 230 pp. is kept in the Rumyantsev Museum. 106–108), another – Joasaph’s – in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy (No. 54 pp. 83–85). The “Commandment” retains all the typical features of Latin penitentials with their legal ideological content. But it doesn’t hurt to note that it was the Merseburg penitentiary that was translated, that is, the best one compared to others, less imbued with a legal understanding of repentance, and therefore not particularly offensive to the ears of people who thought about repentance in a churchly way. One way or another, the “Commandment of the Holy Fathers” undoubtedly influenced the composition of our Slavic penance books, and perhaps even the Greek nomocanons. Professor A.S. Pavlov indicated the Greek rules corresponding to the first and second paragraphs of the penitential, and raised the question: what is the original and what is the translation. Pavlov himself considered the Greek text to be original (Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, pp. 709–710), but Professor Suvorov did not agree with this (On the issue of Western influence, pp. 78–82). Professor Zaozersky, from the point of view of antiquity, gives undeniable advantage to the Latin text (Nomocanon of John the Faster, p. 78). In Slavic monuments, traces of the “Commandments of the Holy Fathers” are better known. 13 rules from it were included in an article known in ancient Russian writing: “The commandment of the holy fathers to confessing sons and daughters” (For more information, see Smirnov. Materials, p. 112, pp. 383 pp.). Certain rules of the “Commandments” are also found in Slavic penance books (see Suvorov. Traces..., p. 167, note 266). Professor N.A. Zaozersky suggests that this Latin “Commandment”, placed in the ancient Slavic helmsmen, supplanted from there the preface of John Scholasticus to his set of 50 titles, and in this preface the Orthodox view of repentance and the meaning of penances is clearly expressed. “The disciples and apostles of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” we read in this preface, “as well as the Church of His holy bishops and teachers did not believe that those who had sinned should be subjected to torture, as prescribed by civil laws, for this seemed to them a vulgar and very careless activity. shepherd, without any delay.... what was only upset and damaged, strengthening and correcting with some mitigating medicines and binding with reasonable prohibitions, and thus, with the grace and assistance of the Spirit, the sick were returned to their original healthy state” (Nomocanon of John the Faster. Preface, pp. 82–83). The disappearance from the helmsmen of this wonderful preface and this true view of repentance is the result of the noticeable and sad influence of Latinism with its legal concepts on Rus'. The Latin influence on Rus' is undeniable and historical. Back in the 11th century, Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk in his “Sermon on the Peasant and Latin Faith” laments that “the Russian land is full of Varangians,” “that all over the land there are Varangians,” and it is difficult to protect yourself from Latin evil, “among those living in one place.” From Elijah’s “questioning” it is clear that in the 12th century children were carried “to the Varangian priest for prayer,” and Bishop Nifont assigns a six-week penance for this, “the very essence of the doors” (Russian Historical Library, T 6, column 60). In different ways, Latin legal views on repentance could be adopted in Rus' and penetrate into penance nomocanons. When school dogma came under the direct influence of Catholicism, then Catholic views on repentance and penance appeared in theological works that belittled the ancient Russian purely Orthodox views on these subjects. After all, Feofan Prokopovich, undoubtedly under the influence of Catholic dogmas, with whom he polemicizes, says, discussing repentance, that penances are imposed, although not to satisfy God for sin, but nevertheless, incidentally, for the example and intimidation of others (Christianae orthodoxae Theologiae. vol. III. Lipsiae 1793. p. 702). Hence the opinion that “penances, as church punishments, striking some sinners, admonish and frighten others,” was included in the anonymous polemical article: “On penances and so-called indulgences” (Christian Reading. 1852, Vol. 1, p. 415). In “A reminder to the priest of his duties when performing the sacrament of repentance” (Bishop Plato. Kostroma, 1859) we read the following definition of penance: “Penance in general means bearing something sorrowful and unpleasant and doing something to correct one’s life and make amends for one’s guilt” (p. 189). “Penance is either a type of spiritual punishment for the correction of a sinner or a type of spiritual healing for the healing of ulcers of the soul” (p. 193). Definitions that are completely alien to the spirit of the Orthodox Church and Orthodox penances. Old Russian confessors, who did not know penance as punishment, together with Rev. Theodore the Studite, who said that penance should be accepted with joy, and not as something “sorrowful and unpleasant,” understood repentance better than Bishop Plato. But who is to blame that the non-bookish ancient Russian confessors understood repentance better than the learned bishop of the 19th century? Catholicism is to blame for having enslaved the theological school, through which it penetrates the consciousness of Church members, lowering the height of the Christian ideal of repentance and relegating repentance to the level of a civil court with its mechanical punishments for the guilty. However, we are not inclined to explain everything bad in Eastern penance nomocanons and in general among representatives of the Church solely by Catholic influence alone. Some legal connotations in the understanding of repentance could have appeared independently among church authors. Christianity is a completely new life. The Church is a suprasocial society; she lives according to special spiritual graces, and not according to civil legal laws (about this in L. A. Tikhomirov. Personality, Society and Church. Moscow, 1904, p. 36 et seq.). Of course, not all people are and are not always able to maintain the height of the church’s understanding of life. Treating natural life more with its external legal artificial norms, people are so imbued with this legal spirit that they are often ready to transfer the same legal norms into church life. This sad phenomenon is, unfortunately, the most common. Even people who consider themselves enlightened and highly cultured often fail to understand the essence of the grace-filled life of the Church. Is it really possible to demand and even expect that semi-literate confessors of the 12th-16th centuries never belittle church ideals? But traces of the legal understanding of repentance can be observed precisely in nomocanons of dubious quality, like Koteler’s, about which Professor A.S. Pavlov wrote: “Judging by the oddities, not to say absurdities, that are found in it quite often, one can guess that it was compiled by some illiterate confessor of the 12th century, in the era of the extreme decline of church jurisprudence in Greece” (Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, pp. 26–27) - in his native “Zinari”, compiled among pious, but poorly educated confessors. In ancient times, almost every confessor had his own “nomocanon.” Professor Yagich describes the origin of these “nomocanons” as follows: “The book-loving priest wrote down the necessary passages for himself, or what he thought he needed” (Starine. VI, p. 112). It is quite clear that “statutes that were not based on the Orthodox science of the Church penetrated into the collections of church rules very early on. The Church therefore prohibited them, placing them between false books or apocrypha, also “bad nomokanuns” (Straine VI, 113). The oldest list of “renounced books” testifies: “The essence of the writings is false, like thin sins nomokanontsi among the priests according to the prayer book” (V.A. Yakovlev. On the literary history of ancient Russian collections. Experience in researching “Izmaragda” Odessa 1893, p. 146 note 122). From Kirik’s “questions” it is clear that Kirik is “one of the host of those illiterate priests among whom all the bad Nomokanunians turned” (A.S. Pavlov. On the writings attributed to the Russian Metropolitan George. Orthodox Review. 1881, Vol. 1, p. 347) - often reads the rules from such books, which, in the opinion of the Orthodox bishop, “suitable to burn” (Russian Historical Library. T. 6, column 44). When Kirik read the rules where penance is understood legally, so that it can be replaced, the Infant did not approve of such rules. Kirik read, “how opitemiyas deliver 10 liturgies in 4 months, and 20 in 8, and 30 in the summer.” The Infant reasonably remarked: “And what is written, the king would have sinned or given other riches for his service, but they themselves are no less hard-working. It’s objectionable” (Russian Historical Library. Vol. 6, column 44). In a fairly common “rule” we read the question: “Behold, they say the nets and count on the summer, 10 services in 4 months, but they do not command to fast and worship, and they do not scold meat and milk and drink, but they honor 30 services in a year.” The following answer was given to this question: “behold, there is evil: then a prince or a rich man, having sinned, would have given a lot for the lesson services, but they themselves, without working, would have left no evil and untruth, so they entered into heresy, listening to the teachers of the wicked, to work for the belly, and not for God. If they teach this, then flatterers are also seducers, and not teachers. To them, whoever has sinned in the body, let them will work hard” (Smirnov. Materials, p. 73). From the “Commandments of the Holy Fathers” in ancient Russian penance books, perhaps the most widespread was the rule prohibiting fasting for hire: “If someone takes a bribe, even though he has fasted, he fasts for the same amount, and he took it to give to the poor; if he does not give it to the poor, he will be condemned for taking up the sins of others and eating absurdly; let him not be called a slave.” Christ” (Manuscript of the Volokolamsk Library No. 566, l. 125 volume. S. Smirnov. Materials, p. 52). Traces of the legal understanding of repentance and penances should be noted from a historical point of view, but the Eastern penance nomocanons cannot be judged by the “bad nomocanons” that the Church itself condemned; these nomocanons can be ignored when characterizing the fundamental views on the meaning of repentance according to the consciousness of church people. The church psychology of repentance has always remained the same as it was defined by the fundamental canonical penanceists. Even in the Church, confessors who were “indulgent” or selfish were distorting the true understanding of repentance, bringing it closer to the Latin, but the Orthodox Church never belittled its high and pure teaching about repentance. Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople wrote to Protestant theologians that “The Orthodox Church recognizes only those penances that are imposed by its ministers as medicines. If they are not used in the way the fathers prescribed to use them and used them in the beginning, to heal only sin, then we also reject them, then we recognize them as vain and dishonest and affirm that this is, undoubtedly, how they should be recognized” (Christian Reading. 1842, Vol. 1, pp. 243–244). Any attempt to emphasize on the basis of Orthodoxy the legal and disciplinary nature of repentance must be considered unsuccessful. Professor N.A. Zaozersky writes: "On the one hand, penance is undoubtedly a disciplinary punishment - a direct consequence of sin. Sin removes a person from God: how can one who has sinned a grave sin begin to communicate with God in the sacrament of communion? There is no sin more than the unworthy communion of the Holy Mysteries. Therefore, each penance is its prohibition for some time during the communion of the Holy Mysteries... The withholding or prohibition of communion was directly deprivation of the right - punishment” (Nomocanon of John the Faster, p. 61). First of all, there is some contradiction in these arguments. Penance is said to be both a disciplinary punishment and a direct consequence of sin. Are these concepts compatible? Is disciplinary action a direct consequence of the misconduct? It does not in any way follow from a schoolboy’s prank that he must stand in the corner or be left “without lunch.” Theft or murder also does not lead to imprisonment. Penance is a direct, and not artificial, like all disciplinary sanctions, consequence of sin. Then, can penance be called deprivation of rights? Punishment is precisely deprivation of rights. A criminal, although he has committed a crime, still has the right to enjoy freedom, but, according to artificially created laws, he is forcibly deprived of this right. It is completely different with repentance. The one who sins loses his right, but he is not forcibly deprived of this right. If a person himself cannot use something, then this deprivation cannot be called punishment. The difference between penance and punishment is precisely that penance is a direct consequence of sin, and disciplinary action is certainly an artificial consequence. The Church is above legal conventions and artificiality. In addition, it is difficult to combine both punishment and healing in one concept of penance. Punishment does not heal. That is why it is best to reject the meaning of a disciplinary sanction behind penance, especially since nowhere in the church canonical rules and in penance literature in general does penance have a disciplinary character. Introducing a legal disciplinary element into the doctrine of repentance can lead to completely strange consequences. Catholicism introduced the legal concept of repentance into its dogma and practice. In the Orthodox Church, individuals sin through the legal understanding of repentance. The Church remains holy and blameless. In Catholicism, the whole society sins and only individuals rise above church errors. In the Orthodox Church, repentance is a clinic from which people leave with a bright, hopeful face, because in their hands they carry medicines to heal their serious and conscience-oppressing sinful ailments. In Catholicism, repentance is a court from which criminals accused and sentenced to heavy punishments emerge gloomy and depressed by the mercilessness of justice. It’s good that you can buy your way out of punishment; otherwise there is no hope of salvation, because it is impossible to completely satisfy an angry Master. Such a significant difference in the psychology of church and Catholic repentance is very characteristic in general for the religious psychology of a member of the Church and a member of Catholic society. St. Gregory the Theologian knows three types of religious and moral life: slaves, mercenaries and sons. "If you are a slave," writes the Holy Father, "be afraid of beatings. If you are a mercenary, keep one thing in mind: to receive. If you stand above a slave and a mercenary, even a son, be ashamed of God as a Father; do good, because it is good to obey your father. Even if you didn’t hope to receive anything, pleasing the Father is a reward in itself” (Homily for Holy Baptism. Creations, Vol. 3. p. 283).Catholicism with its concept of repentance does not allow a person to rise above the first step - slavery, where he is afraid of beatings, and the Church elevates its member to the level of a son, where he recognizes himself not as a trembling slave and not a mercenary dreaming of wages, but precisely the son of the Heavenly Father. Our Westerners so often say that there were universities in Western Europe even when wild animals prowled the site of the oldest Russian university. To this we can say. So be it! But when in Western Europe learned theologians belittled and distorted the concept of Christian life and morality, this concept was pure and high among our confessors who barely wandered through the psalms, and this is because they lived in the Church, having retreated from which Western Europe lost the grace of the Divine Spirit that enlightens every person. Without the Church there is no benefit either in cultural progress, or in the accumulation of knowledge, or in improving the forms of the political and social system. The Church is the pillar and affirmation of the truth, and outside it there is only earthly wisdom, often at war with Divine thought. Complete Works, vol. II, ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 200–201. Prof. N. A. Zaozersky. Nomocanon of John the Faster in its Georgian, Greek and Slavic editions. M., 1902, p. 64. Compare. prof. A.I. Almazova: Canonary of Monk John, pp. 141–143. Notes of the Imperial Novorossiysk University. 1907, t. 109. Prof. Zaozersky. Nomocanon of John the Faster, page 19. However, in one sense or another, the authenticity of the nomocanon, its belonging to the famous Patriarch of Constantinople, is confirmed by Prof. A.S. Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik. Odessa, 1872. Pp. 19–26 and more in the second edition. M., 1897. Pp. 32–40 and appendix pp. 455–491. Also in the article: Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of South Slavic and Russian church law. Readings at the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1891. T. 2, pp. 726–740. The same goes for Prof. A.I. Almazov. Secret confession in the Orthodox Eastern Church. T. 1. Odessa, 1894. Pp. 72–77. Nomocanon. Page 75–77. see also N.S. Suvorov. On the issue of Western influence on ancient Russian law. Yaroslavl, 1893, p. 113. Migne. Patrologiae cursus completus, ser. gr. t. 88, col. 1926. Gorchakov. On the history of penance nomocanons of the Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg, 1874. Pp. 74. Almazov. Secret confession. Vol. III, pp. 3, 21, 105, 107, 109. Pavlov's. Imaginary traces... Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1891. T. 2, pp. 728–729. At Suvorov's. On the issue of Western influence. Page 114. Imaginary traces... Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1891. T. 2, pp. 723–729. Here is prof. Pavlov literally repeats what he wrote earlier to Academician M.I. Brosse. A note about the Georgian nomocanon. Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. 1874. T. 25, 1, pp. 34–35. Traces of Western Catholic church law in the monuments of ancient Russian law. Yaroslavl, 1888. Pp. 92. Latin penitentials are quoted from the publication of Dr. F. W. N. Wasserschleben. Die Bussordnungen der abendlanischen Kirche. Halle 1851. This edition includes the pages supplied after the paragraphs of the individual penitentiaries. A. Shostin. The superiority of the Orthodox confession over the Jesuit-Catholic confession.// “Faith and Reason”. 1887. T. 1, p. 470. Information about Catholic “dachshunds” can be found in the Collection of articles by Archpriest. D. F. Kasitsyna. Moscow, 1902. Pp. 125–135, 141–158, 186–191, 196–206. You might be interested in: