Sad misunderstanding: [About the article: News of the Brotherhood of Rights. Churches in China]

Understand the law of thoughts there is good (Prov. IX, 10). Explanatory definition of the Holy Synod on the procedure for applying Art. 253 in divorce cases. Est. Spirit. Con. according to the new version 1, approved by the Highest on May 28, 1904, at one time it was welcomed by public opinion as a long-desired “new law” and as a good beginning for laws to be followed in the future - in terms of correcting and improving our divorce law, both in substance and in the procedural part, which is currently raising important bewilderments. But then these enthusiastic greetings were gradually replaced by statements of the opposite nature, which began to penetrate into the press. Among our society there were zealots of piety, indeed, of the Gospel, as among lay people - high-ranking people who declared in the press their futile labor for the benefit of the Orthodox Church, there were pastors and even archpastors who saw in the Explanatory Definition of the Holy Synod under consideration such an innovation that “covers them with shame”, “terrifies them with consequences”, as a clear contradiction to the Gospel. The most typical of such statements, made to us personally and confidentially, we consider the editorial of “News of the Brotherhood of the Orthodox Church in China” published in issue. II entitled: Amendment of Art. 253 of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories. The article is so typical that we will allow you to quote it all verbatim 2. Before us is Article 253 of the Constitution. Spirit. Consistory in a modified edition (Church Ved. No. 26). The essence of the change is the abolition of the condemnation to eternal celibacy of persons whose marriage was dissolved due to violation of the sanctity of marriage by adultery. Such persons (on the first and second marriage) are now allowed to enter into a new marriage, after performing some penance by the verdict of the spiritual court; if such persons are again (secondarily) convicted of violating a new marriage, then this (new) marriage is dissolved, and the guilty persons are condemned to eternal celibacy. Thus, although the condemnation of celibacy remains, it applies only to persons who are divorced from their first marriage, since a person who is divorced from a second marriage and enters into a third marriage (on the basis of the new article) obviously cannot enter into a (fourth) legal marriage, on the basis of well-known laws. Church penance makes sense only if sin is prohibited, if the crime stops. The sin of adultery remains a sin until the illegal cohabitation is terminated, and in the new article the violator of the sacrament of marriage is again blessed in the church, publicly, for a new marriage, subject only to penance. The sanctity of marriage in the Orthodox Church is understood as its inviolability, indissolubility: “What God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt. XIX, 6). After the death of her husband, a wife is free to marry another, and so is the husband (I Corinthians 7, Chapter 39, Art.), but a husband guilty of adultery is already dead for marriage in the church sense of the word. How does he appear again as the legal chosen one for married life? According to the new article, every vicious person who for some reason wants to dissolve a marriage can easily achieve this through open adultery, and intends to enter into a new legal marriage on the basis of a new article of the law... You can’t help but think about the difficult situation the pastors of the Church are placed in, who will now have to perform the sacrament of marriage under unprecedented conditions: they will have to publicly bless open adulterers for the continuation of illegal cohabitation, and then it will already be, as it were, legal. Who needed such a “new” article of the law? Willful criminals, unbridled debauchees? But why is the Holy Church involved in conniving in the destruction of the Orthodox family union? What answer will we give to those who ask us about the sanctity of church marriage? From time immemorial, the Russian people have adopted the name of marriage as a law - they say: “to complete the law,” but now what will they call new marriages under Art. 253rd? We, called here, in a foreign country, to guard the holiness of the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, are embarrassed at the thought of a new law, we have no reason to justify it before people, even those who have recently abandoned paganism; we are covered in shame, horrified at the consequences to which the application of the new law inevitably leads. The painful feeling that one has to experience when reading Article 253 in its new edition is intensified by the unexpectedness of its appearance, since before its publication it was not communicated to the Russian hierarchs in order to select their authoritative opinion on this issue. The article, as the reader can easily see, is written from the heart, imbued with the sincere feeling and sacred enthusiasm of a hero who stands up for the triumph of the Gospel and suffers from its humiliation... by the Consistory Charter in its new edition. To defeat the latter, the author armed himself with the Holy Words of Ev. Onion. XVI, 18 and apparently defeated outright... updated article 253 of the Constitution. Spirit. Con. Is this so, however? Did he destroy this article, or something else? Delving into the course of thoughts of the venerable author, who hid his name for something - for the understanding of the law is - according to the tributary - a very good deed, which should not be ashamed at all - we came to the conviction that his invincible weapon - the holy words of the Gospel - did not hit the updated 253 art. Consistorial Charter, but for some reason completely different. Let us allow ourselves to share the Theologian with our readers. Messenger with this conviction. Let us first turn to the Consistory Charter, both in its original edition of 1841, and in the most recent one - this year 1904 and ask the questions: when and how did it arise and what is it essentially? As you know, this book is entirely the product of joint work by officials of the Spiritual Consistories and other offices of the Spiritual Department, clothed in the form of the “Charter” during the reign of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, who worked so hard and energetically to establish lawfulness and strict order in our government institutions of all departments. In terms of their sources and content, these books are nothing more than a carefully edited practice of the offices of the Spiritual Department, which was formed gradually throughout the entire synodal period and until 1841 had neither uniformity nor was included in any written code. The draft, which laid down this practice in the “Charter” or book, was sent to all dioceses to test it experimentally, with a requirement from the bishops and consistories for comments on its various articles. Upon receipt of these comments by the Holy Synod, this draft was revised, finally edited and in this form received the Highest approval, being published as a legislative Code parallel to the “code of laws” in 1841. From that moment on, it entered into life and, under the influence of the course of life, was gradually modified in articles, and in 1883 it was republished again, then again experiences the same process to this day. In these changes he relies exclusively on Art. 49 Basic Laws, which reads as follows: “The original design of laws is drawn up either at the special Highest discretion and direct command, or it takes its origin from the general course of affairs, when, when considering them in the governing Senate, in the Holy Synod and in the ministries, it is recognized as necessary either to clarify and supplement the current law, or to draw up a new resolution. In this case, these places submit their assumptions in the established order to the Highest discretion.” The change in question is Art. 253. Con. The Charter was carried out in the same ordinary legal order and, of course, would not have attracted any special attention, as a completely ordinary matter, if it had not concerned a subject of vital vital interest. That's the point! - the zealots of the Gospel will exclaim. “The painful feeling that one of these zealots concludes his article “one has to experience when reading article 253 in its new edition is intensified by the unexpectedness of its appearance, since before its publication it was not communicated to the Russian hierarchs in order to select their authoritative opinion on this issue.” This means, in the opinion of a lawyer “existing in China”, to amend Art. 253. Est. Spirit. Con. it was necessary to convene almost a local council of Russian bishops! This word is inconvenient and cruel. Is the Consistorial Charter, and in particular its 253rd article of the old edition, such a church shrine that only the holy hands of Russian bishops can touch it and cleanse it of debris? In our opinion, neither the very original, unskilled creators of it - the clerical officials, nor the right reverend bishops of the forties who revised it, nor the members of the Holy Synod who finally edited it, nor the Highest Authority itself, which was pleased to legislatively sanction this work, ever thought that this work was such a church shrine. “However,” readers will object to us, “the Consistory Charter is a legislative code, on the exact basis of which, from 1841 to this day, administration and spiritual court are carried out in the local border of the Orthodox Russian Church, called diocese 3 - therefore, it is a church shrine. This fair remark does not frighten us either. We very readily agree with this remark and will even strengthen it all. We highly value this charter as the joint work of nameless workers who brought this gift of their labors to the Holy Church in 1841: they brought into it all their understanding and zeal. We deeply appreciate the hierarchs who revised and edited this charter, among whom we feel the editorial pencil of such a famous figure as St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow - this, in our opinion, Russian Photius, although only a metropolitan, and not a patriarch. Taking all this into account, we do not deny admitting that the Consistory Rule is a church shrine: but is it such that it cannot be touched by an inquisitive mind, for example. a layman, an official or a scientist for the purpose of service, or out of free will, who has taken upon himself the work of “understanding the law,” i.e. study, weigh its articles and express your opinion about its merits as a church shrine? We, in all conscience, cannot admit this. Every thing has its time under heaven. In 1841, the Charter of D.K. there was a good law, a wonderful thing, and then holes began to appear in it and it began to be corrected, to adapt to life, to correct errors that had been overlooked by the original creators and editors. After all, it never occurred to any of them that they were infallible. Even Saint Philaret himself, without hesitation, admitted on the contrary that both he and other hierarchs - his contemporaries - were forced, on some church issues, to “sneakly bypass the apostolic statute.” It follows that the Charter is Spirit. Although the consistory is a highly respected shrine of the Russian Orthodox Church, it does not at all claim to be infallible and eternal immutability, that it - further - not only does not oblige the Holy Synod to inviolability, but, on the contrary, obliges It to “explain, supplement and draw up a new resolution, submitting its assumptions in an established manner to the Highest discretion,” and is not at all obliges to preliminarily assemble for this purpose a local council of Russian hierarchs, as the venerable lawyer thinks, “existing in China.” And this is still not enough. For although the Charter is Spirit. The consistory is one of the guiding codes on which modern administration and the modern diocesan court are based, but it is far from the only one and not even the most important, but on the contrary, it is one of several and, moreover, the last in legislative dignity. It is easy to verify this by looking only at page 2 of it, where we read: "St. 6: The foundations of diocesan administration and court are: a) the Law of God, proposed in the Holy Scriptures; b) Canons or rules of the Holy Apostles, holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and holy Fathers; c) The Spiritual Regulations and the subsequent Highest Decree and determinations of the Holy Governing Synod; and d) Legislation in force in the state. The order of administration and court carried out through the Consistory, and its structure, external and internal, are determined in the following sections of this charter.” As is clearly seen from here, the Charter of D.K. establishes itself, i.e. in rank terms in 5th place and does not even put himself in a row with his four predecessors, but only, as it were, adjoins them in the form of a note. So what? Is it really that the Holy Governing Synod is not authorized to make changes to just one article in this “note” without communicating with the council of all hierarchs of the Russian Church? It seems to us that not a single lawyer, not a single writer “who understands the law” would dare to assert this. - But Article 253 is very important! another impatient and angry reader will exclaim.– Your reader is not afraid of this anger, however! Calm down and listen patiently further. It is precisely this deep vital importance of Article 253 that serves as the justification for the Holy Synod that, bypassing, so to speak, unnecessary formalities (such as relations with all Russian hierarchs), it accelerated its modification, which the toiling and burdened sinners and sinners and their innocent children, who are countless in number, longed for, thereby taking upon themselves the risk, selfless It was a feat to be subjected to criticism from some jurists for his holy and lawful act - which indeed followed. But the truth requires saying that it is far from unhurried, far from imprudent, far from autocratic, but on the contrary – extremely prudent, Dov. The Holy Synod acted slowly and very deliberately in this case. The anonymous author of the article in question claims that the appearance of the new edition of Article 253 was “a surprise.” – This statement is a very sad misunderstanding. The Holy Synod has been busy thinking about this edition since at least 1880, i.e. exactly 25 years old. And was he the only one occupied with this thought? No and no. Prominent Russian hierarchs, experts on the Law of God and other foundations of the spiritual court, outstanding and not outstanding sworn canonists of Theological Academies and Universities, were occupied with this thought, the Holy Synod was informed by the Holy Synod from the archives of its opinions of the most famous hierarchs of the Russian and other Orthodox churches of past centuries “from ancient years”, countless newspaper and magazine articles by authors of the most diverse directions were listened to attentively. How diverse and contradictory these opinions were can be judged, it seems, only because among the sworn canonists who expressed their opinion on this issue in print, there was one who during this period of time expressed in print two radically opposing opinions: one against the wedding of adulterers, the other in favor of this wedding. This canonist is none other than the one who writes the real lines 4. So important and difficult was the feat of the Holy Synod in categorically resolving this issue, as given by the explanatory definition we quoted. It is impossible to reproach him for slowness, but to bless him for changing the wording of Article 253. – should. As for the motives that prompted me to renounce the opinion expressed in 1882 and to defend the opposite, they are set out in detail in my articles published in the Theological Bulletin for 1902. From these motives, I will allow myself to literally reproduce here the opinion of a member of the Holy Synod, His Grace Theophan, Archbishop of Pskov 5 . According to the power of thought formulated in his following words, these last are amazing: “not allowing freedom to a guilty person (i.e., accused of adultery) to a new combination, we will force the young woman to become liquefied and constantly be in the scourge of prodigal sin, even if we confess that he does not have the gift of continence, and the apostolic word: it is better to marry than to become liquefied ( 1 Cor. VII, 9) extends equally to all who do not have the gift of self-control, as if it protects them from sin. If anyone says that instead of a worthy execution for a guilty person, it is appropriate to take away his freedom to remarry, we answer him that a person cannot execute a person for sin with an obvious disaster.” I admit that I am completely powerless to object to this idea... Peering, further, into the very appearance of Art. 253rd according to its old edition, both in the 1883 edition and in the 1841 edition. (here it stands under No. 256), we observe the following remarkable phenomenon: neither in the text of the article nor under it is there any reference to any decree or to any rule of St. Father or council, not to any place in the Gospel. The question naturally arises: why did this happen? Why is it that none of the numerous editors of this article took the trouble to substitute a quotation of any conciliar canon under this article, or, finally, at least a quotation from Ev. Onion. XVI, 18, with which the anonymous author of the article in question beats the new edition of Art. 253. Est. D.K. Is it really possible, for example? Did it cost Saint Philaret great difficulty to remember at least this quotation from the Gospel and with it forever secure the inviolability of Article 253 from later distortions? We do not take the liberty to say this. Yes, this is not required at all. The matter is explained much more simply. This article does not have any indisputable canonical or historical-legal support for itself. The categorical tone was given to it exclusively by the creators of the Charter of the Spirit. Con. in 1841, without however daring to substantiate it with anything. For if they had something solid at hand to substantiate it, they would not fail to point to it. There would not have been such a striking disagreement among the sworn canonists, as they differed, if they had any indisputable grounds on this issue. There is only one possible conclusion from all that has been said: the Holy Synod of 1904 had every right to revise Article 253 again and radically change its wording. But what about the Gospel? After all, the new edition contradicts Ev. Onion. XVI, 18. We admit that we pose this question not without fear and trembling. What frightens and confuses us is that we dare to interpret this Gospel law in one way or another, and for this we must first understand its full depth, its exact meaning; for the Lawgiver who gave it is unusually strict: one jot, or one tittle, will not pass away. Such is His Will. Meanwhile, we are not unaware that so many deep and brilliant minds worked on the understanding of this law among the Jews, Greeks, Romans, and French. The English, Germans, Russians, etc., that if we were to collect all the experiences of understanding this law, they would probably fill all the books of the Theological Bulletin. We would then have to sort through this mass and finally give our final word. Suppose we did all this, for example. with the generous help of his highly respected colleagues - specialists in the interpretation of the Gospel Law. But then we are even more confused by the following words of the Holy Gospel Luke. XXIV, 45: then open their minds to understand the scriptures. What then? have we acquired this gift of the Lawgiver to our disciples? Agree, reader, that it is scary to pose such a question. Meanwhile, we must pose it and answer it in the affirmative so that our enterprise is crowned with success. What enterprise? Why, we are going to accuse the Holy Synod of contradicting the Gospel, which it discovered by changing Art. 253 Set. Spirit. Consistory. To do this, we must prove that we understand the Holy Gospel better than he, that we not only fully master the scientific apparatus, but also have acquired the gift of understanding the law of God, which the Holy Apostles acquired. And if we find ourselves without either one or the other of these means, then we are in danger of falling under the judgment of not only the Holy Synod, but simply all smart and serious people. For what? – For insolence, for insulting the authorities? - No; why such horrors! Simply - for a careless attitude towards the words of the Holy Gospel - a vice, unfortunately, very often encountered in our home life, and in public, and in literary activity. In fact, who does not now torment the Holy Words of the Gospel in ordinary conversations, in defensive speeches before Messrs. jurors, in epigraphs to the stupidest articles, in hastily concocted works of fiction from the life of the clergy and monasticism, and so on, and so on. Penance should be imposed on all such talkers and writers. So, it is better to abandon the undertaking we have undertaken - accusing the Holy Synod of contradicting the Gospel. But what should we do with the Holy Gospel? Still, it seems that between Luk. XVI, 18. and art. 253. Const. D.K. no harmony? We think that for this purpose an attempt should be made to justify the Holy Synod for its change in Art. 253. Although this idea is not very prudent, we dare to think that apart from the reproach of naivety, it will not entail any more trouble for us. Meanwhile, it seems to be very easy for us to implement this idea. To carry it out, you do not need to have deep and extensive erudition regarding the text and exegesis of the holy words of the Gospel in question, nor do you need to have a special gift for understanding the Scriptures: just a reverent attitude towards the holy words is enough. So, delving into the thoughts and individual words of Luke. XVI, 18. We do not see here at all a condemnation of celibacy and even the word celibacy itself. If there is neither this thought nor this word, then why justify the condemnation to celibacy with these words of the Gospel: justify it with anything else, but not at all with the Gospel. Therefore, the Holy Synod, which approved Art. 253 in 1841. Est. D.K., who condemned the adulterer to celibacy, acted absolutely rightly, without making reference to either this or any other place in the Holy Gospel: for there is no condemnation to celibacy anywhere in it. But perhaps the condemnation of an adulterer to celibacy follows as a logical conclusion from the law in question? To the surprise of Luke. XVI, 18. it is impossible to draw such a conclusion whether we read this passage in the Slavic or Russian translations: Anyone who puts away his wife and brings another commits adultery; and if you marry a wife who has been put away by her husband, he commits adultery. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries one divorced from her husband commits adultery. In order to obtain the desired logical conclusion, it must distort, for example. Russian text in this way: anyone divorced (not divorced) from his wife and married to another commits adultery, etc. Without the same distortion, the condemnation of a person guilty of adultery cannot be deduced to permanent celibacy by sound logic. Simply put, this is the place of the Holy Gospel to Art. 253 Set. D.K. has nothing to do with it, and the anonymous author of the article we are considering, who intended with these holy words to strike at Art. 253. Const. D.K. obviously missed. The following passage from the Holy Gospel of Matthew has some relevance to this article. V, 32: Whoever lets his wife go without committing adultery commits adultery: and whoever understands the prostitute commits adultery. The word fornication (or guilt, crime) is, according to the Gospel, a serious crime of a wife that gives the husband the right to completely dissolve the marriage with her and marry someone else. And that's all. And what punishment, according to the Gospel, is a sinner, an adulterous wife, subject to? Firstly, because she ceases to be her husband’s wife, she loses her rights as his wife, legally speaking. And secondly, what punishment? Condemnation to celibacy? But neither from this place, nor from other places in the Holy Gospel can one even catch a thought about this punishment. From other places in the New Testament it is clear that adultery in general is a very serious sin, it must be washed with tears of repentance; if he is not washed, then: adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. What if he is washed with tears of repentance? In such a case, he can be completely forgiven, blotted out by the mercy of God, which no human sin can overcome, and repentant adulterers precede others in the kingdom of God. This is the New Testament teaching about the sin of adultery. It then formed the basis of a rather strict Church Discipline. Here are some of the rules of this strict discipline: 20th Rights Council of Ancyra (314): Let the fornicator and the fornicator be excommunicated for seven years 6. Interpretation: There is a fornicator who lies with another husband from her husband. A fornicator like his wife with another wife. 77th Rule of St. Basil the Great: If you leave your wife and take another, you are an adulterer; Let him receive seven years of prohibition: let him cry one summer, two summers listening to the divine scriptures, three years falling down, and the seventh summer standing with the faithful without communion: and then let them partake of the holy gifts. The 87th Rule of the Council of Trulla confirmed this rule in all its force; but the same council, in its 102nd rule, empowers archpastors and pastors, as spiritual doctors, to shorten these periods of repentance, weighing the circumstances of the sin committed and the sincerity of repentance. This is the rule of softer and more lenient church discipline: The creation of sinful wine, let it be seen above all, and the conversion of the repentant, let it be recognized, and thus mercy is measured. Interpretation: The fathers commanded the prohibition about every sin, but they laid the entire judgment on the one who received the power from God to bind and loose, as if he looks at the multitude, and at the smallness of sins, and at the conversion of the sinner, and the repentant, and so let him measure mercy, and let the doctor bring something similar to the disease: for the whole word of God is entrusted to him: pastoral dominion in this There is a way to turn the wandering sheep, so that it does not fall into the abyss of despair, and to heal the one wounded by the serpent, either with the most fierce and tolerant or with the weakest and softest of the past. Heeding precisely these rules of strict and soft ancient church discipline, the Holy Synod this year corrected Article 253 of the Constitution. D.K. In order to clearly see the comparative canonical dignity of both editions of this article, we present them in the original text in parallel: If it is proven that the person responsible is incapable of marital cohabitation, or that he has violated the sanctity of marriage by adultery, then the marriage is dissolved, and the plaintiff, who was in his first or second marriage, is given the right to enter into a new marriage, and the person responsible is condemned to permanent celibacy, and if he is condemned for violating the sanctity of marriage, he is subjected to penance according to church rules. The Holy Synod, for the purpose of uniform and correct application in divorce cases, Art. 253. found it necessary to provide the diocesan authorities with the following guidelines: 1) the request of a person whose marriage was dissolved due to his adultery for permission to enter into a new marriage is permitted, after due consideration by the diocesan authorities, at the place of residence of the petitioner; 2) such a request can be initiated and subject to satisfaction not before the spouse guilty of violating his previous marriage by adultery has fulfilled the penalty imposed for such a crime in accordance with 87 rights. VI Ecumenical Council (same as Trullo), 20 rights. Ankirsky and 77 rights. St. Basil the Great, a seven-year penance based on 102 rights. The VI Ecumenical Council may, after a thorough examination by the confessor of the penance's conscience and confirmation of the degree of his repentance and correction, be shortened by the diocesan bishop in whose jurisdiction the confessor of the penance is, so that the total period of the penance to be performed is at least 2 years. Comparing both of these editions, it seems that one cannot doubt for a minute the superiority of the new one over the old one: the latter is not based on anything, except perhaps a vague reference to some church rules, 7 the first, on the contrary, is edited on the exact basis of the rules cited in it. “You can’t help but think,” says the anonymous author of the article in question, “about the difficult situation the pastors of the Church are placed in, who will now have to perform the sacrament of marriage under unprecedented conditions: they will have to publicly bless open adulterers to continue their illegal cohabitation, and then it will be, as it were, legal. Who needed such a “new” article of the law? Willful criminals, unbridled debauchees? But why is the Holy Church involved in conniving in the destruction of the Orthodox family union? What answer will we give to those who ask us about the sanctity of church marriage? From time immemorial, the Russian people have adopted the name of marriage as a law - they say: “to complete the law,” but now what will they call new marriages under Art. 253rd? In this pathetic tirade, two thoughts flash: 1) about the burden awaiting shepherds when applying the new law and 2) about the pandering to open adulterers and debauchees. “You can’t help but think about this,” the venerable author saddens. We think that he thought little about what he wrote so pathetically. That the burden of shepherding will increase with the conscientious application of the new law is undoubtedly: but should one be sad about this? Shouldn't we be happy? Shouldn’t we, on the contrary, grieve about the serene tranquility that Article 253 of the old edition authorized the Russian Orthodox pastorate, condemning categorically open adulterers to permanent celibacy, i.e. to open and hidden depravity, and their innocent babies to orphanhood, if not outright death? Didn’t she instill in them thoughts something like this: “good Russian shepherds! have fun spiritually and physically when blessing “legal” marriages (even hidden adulterers), make acquaintance with families that are comfortable according to the exact meaning of the articles of the Oral. D.K. i.e. such where everything is hidden and hidden, where no vice can be proven by eyewitnesses, and put aside all concern for open adulterers and libertines, who agreed better to “take upon themselves the guilt and despicable title of open adulterers” than to maintain an outwardly well-ordered family and marital fidelity, but inside filled with the abominations of secret depravity, irreconcilable hatred and malice, who decided to better be known as open adulterers than to continue, under the protection of the Consistory Charter, the transformation of the “holy sacrament of marriage” into a “watered tomb!” “Another department” will take care of these open adulterers, for example, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and let your department be pure and serene: “sleep and rest and do not dirty your blessing hands with participation in open sinners and adulterers.”... Did the Holy, Orthodox, Russian Church, not to mention the ancient Church, ever call its shepherds to such a serene sleep before the “old laws” came into being in the role of the U.D.K.? Did she really teach our people to “keep the law” in this way – i.e. the holy sacrament of marriage?! Let us allow ourselves this time to “prove” and reveal this issue to historians, and limit ourselves to only pointing out the following article of instructions to the priestly elder of the last of the Russian patriarchs, His Holiness Adrian: “Which widow or girl,” says Article 29, “lives with someone unlawfully and gives birth to a child, and cleanses that mother in labor with prayer without notice, and gives the baby a name, and that woman in labor, in which house she lives, collect a written note in that house, so that while she prays, she can be taken to the ten-year-old yard and interrogated with whom she gave birth to that child. And whoever he says, interrogate and inflict punishment on his search, beat him mercilessly and send him to the monastery for a month, and in the monastery he is ordered to be between church singing in monastic works, and ordered to come to church singing, to Vespers, to Matins and the Liturgy, and after the Liturgy, make 100 prostrations every day. And for the woman in labor to make a decree against the fact that she is 40 days old, and not to have any money in hand, and for the sake of record, those rascal speeches from them in the ten-year-old yard should be written down in a book.” And if any widows or girls refuse - the next article suggests - from naming their lawless cohabitants, then they will be punished twice, so that “those fornicators will not be sheltered from punishment for anything by any excuses in their lawless deed.” After such execution has been carried out, the lawless ones should be “married, so that no one will live lawlessly, without a wedding, with a widow or a girl” (v. 31). For many years, this “law” was old stuff. D.K. and Article 253 of the old edition represents a very new law: the question is now: “new article” - in the words of the nameless author - i.e. The 253rd new edition constitutes an innovation, or, on the contrary, represents a return of our shepherding to the primordial and eternal way of understanding and “performing the law,” i.e. holy sacrament of marriage? It seems obvious that calling Article 253 of the Constitution. D.K. new edition - an innovation - unheard of in Rus' Holy - a misunderstanding of the law - very sad. His Holiness Patriarch Adrian was strict towards hidden fornicators and harlots, but very merciful towards open ones, and as for babies born from fornication, he was immensely loving towards children: shouldn’t he be brought to justice for this by the mercilessly strict and zealous guardians of the Gospel law of the 20th century?! His Holiness Patriarch Adrian was brave, extraordinarily brave, in ordering that the harlot-mother should be “sanctified through prayer,” and then the confessed “lawless ones, in the language of modern writers, should be publicly blessed to continue their lawless cohabitation.” For this “connivance in the destruction of the family union,” should he not be brought under the merciless judgment of the zealots of the sanctity of marriage of the 20th century? How sad it is to pose these strange questions! Why don’t you install them? Yes, the amended 253rd article of the U.D.C. awakens our resting shepherds from a serene sleep and gets them used to good work in converting sinners and adulterers to the path of truth and the Gospel law, and places on them the “heavy” burden that the shepherds led by Patriarch Adrian bore. What then? Should modern pastors thank the Holy Synod for imposing this burden, or should they complain about it to public opinion, to the Russian Orthodox people for waking them up from a serene sleep? Of course, you can complain; after all, they have hitherto “preserved the sanctity of the dogmas of the Orthodox faith,” putting aside all concern for open desecrators of it, placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which in various ways is sophisticated in inventing measures to weaken syphilis, to regulate prostitution, lawless cohabitation - by civil measures, and evil is growing and growing; The strong Russian people are degenerating and melting in cities and villages. What will our shepherds, who are zealous for the sanctity of marriage, answer to this? “We watch over it,” they will answer. And I would like to say to such zealots of cleanliness: you are careful; but why are you not so active, not so bold in distributing your blessings and prayers to repentant open adulterers, as the shepherds of the times of Patriarch Hadrian and more ancient times were active and bold? Has your faith in the grace-filled power of the church sacraments—repentance and marriage—waned? We are horrified to consider this issue and are more willing to admit here a simple misunderstanding regarding church jurisprudence, albeit a sad one. Church Gazette No. 32. To our extreme regret, this article was reprinted in its entirety by Moskovskie Vedomosti (No. 296) with the following accompanying recommendation: “While here in Russia, spiritual magazines, compared to secular ones, have almost completely failed to respond to the extremely important changes being made in the situation of the Orthodox family by the new direction of our marriage legislation, so welcomed by Messrs. Rozanov, - in remote China, the organ of the local Brotherhood of the Orthodox Church - its Izvestia (No. 11) - places the following assessment of this legislation. We are reprinting this wonderful article in full.” This article is remarkable: but alas! in a sense - completely opposite to this magnificent and responsible recommendation. See my articles: Orthodox Review 1882 On divorce proceedings, and Theological Bulletin 1902: On what is Church jurisdiction in marriage matters based? The author of the Spiritual Regulations, a person of extremely unsympathetic moral character and deeds. For brevity, we present these and the following rules according to the text of the Helmsman’s Book. This edition contradicts the church rules with its cruelty, imposing double punishment for one criminal act: both condemnation to celibacy and church penance. Meanwhile, eg. The 25th Apostolic Canon says: If a saint has been in fornication, or in an oath, or in theft, he may be cast out (i.e. from office), and not excommunicated (i.e. from church communion), for the scripture says: “Thou shalt not pay off two things together.” Interpretation: a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or whoever is a clerk, if he is in fornication, or in an oath, or in theft, it is enough for him to be deposed from the dignity, and it is inappropriate to excommunicate him, so that he will not endure torment twice as long, which is by no means philanthropic. You might be interested in: