What is a schismatic marriage

(Regarding the recent bigamy trial of a schismatic who converted to Orthodoxy). Marriage in this is to have purity and honor, to be cleansed from fornication: and for this reason one should not eat for the sake of fornication, nor is the beginning of marriage, but sin and the transgression of the Law of God; just as if anyone commits fornication with his wife, let him depart from her, if there is a powerful way: there is more. If in every way the relationship between each other and desire is not rejected, then the life of marital cohabitation in love, fornication will be prohibited: if you leave it like this, nothing worse will happen. (Interpretation on 26 rights. St. Vas. Great. Helm. ch. 21). “On October 11 (1894), the criminal cassation department heard a very important, fundamental case (!) on the cassation appeal of the tradesman Vasily Alekseev (aka Parfenov) against the decision of the Moscow Court of Justice 1). The importance or principle of the case - as our metropolitan body puts it - is determined by “a serious everyday and legal question, for the first time in judicial practice, posed directly and categorically: the first significant question raised by the cassation appeal is the question of what a marriage of schismatics is and what is its legal and moral significance. Does such a marriage signify a family union aimed at preserving public order and morality, or is it a simple, prodigal cohabitation, the consequences of which are provided for in Art. 994? Lay down about punishments"? This is how the famous judicial speaker A.F. explained the importance of this case for judicial practice itself. Koni, as the Prosecutor of the Senate, who participated in the consideration of the trial 2. With even greater – we dare to assure you of this – some Orthodox priests read the summary of this process with burning interest, precisely those who had to deal with persons like V. Parfenov and resolve the issue raised for the first time in judicial practice more than once in their priestly practice. The greatest interest for Orthodox pastors was the strict and precise application of the law of 1874 on April 19 to the criminal, which legalized schismatic marriage under certain conditions. Twenty years have passed since the publication of this extremely important law, which radically changed the centuries-old view of our civil legislation on schismatic marriages: meanwhile, during all this time there was no reason until the present case to officially and publicly recall the power of this law. The long-established old view of legislation and pastoral practice actually prevailed over the new view, especially since the schismatics themselves were not willing to take advantage of the humanity of this law. To this should also be added the fact that the Holy Synod did not issue any explanatory decrees regarding this law for guidance in diocesan practice. Having taken these circumstances into account, the reader will cease to be surprised if we say that this law was almost completely forgotten and was completely unknown even to many priests, in whose parishes there are many schismatics, until the present case and became known only after reading this process. So, the present trial both recalled the existence of this forgotten law, and confirmed it in full force, and in addition established, in fact and legally, a new view of our legislation on the dignity of schismatic marriage. What is this dignity? With the usual clarity, logic and thoroughness, A.F. Koni examined and resolved this issue in his indictment; his speech was decisive in the outcome of the case. During the process, however, attempts were made to resolve the issue differently; they did not achieve their goal, however, considering the comprehensively posed question and internally related issues not of a civil, but mainly of an ecclesiastical nature, which therefore could not take place in the process under consideration, we believe that these attempts deserve consideration. Therefore, in order to represent, on our part, an attempt to clarify some issues regarding schismatic marriage, which are interesting specifically for pastoral practice, we will focus on some details of the process and on some places in the speeches of the defense and prosecution. For clarity, let us first briefly introduce the essence of the process. The Moscow tradesman (former schismatic) V. Parfenov in 1883 entered into marriage according to a schismatic non-priest rite with K. Sukonshchikova (a schismatic), lived with her for several years in marriage and, having already had three children from her, abandoned her for her drunken and dissolute life, entered into a relationship with E. Kutilina (Orthodox), converted to Orthodoxy and - concealing his first marriage - On July 20, 1892, he entered into a church marriage with her, being married in the church of the prison castle by priest A. Vladimirsky. It should be noted that Parfenov’s first marriage was timely, on the basis of the law on April 19. 1874, by the Police Department recorded in the established metric book. Wanting to enter into a second, church marriage, Parfenov presented permission from the Meshchansky Council to marry as a single person. Parfenov's first wife, K. Sukonshchikova, who remained in schism, perhaps, conscious of her guilt before her husband, did not think of initiating proceedings; but she was forced to straighten out her housing ticket from the same bourgeois council. Official N. Having learned that Parfenov was incorrectly given permission to marry from the Administration, he opened a case; as a result of which Parfenov was brought to justice for bigamy. During the process, the following points deserve attention: “At the trial, the accused, pleading guilty, testified that priest Glagolev, who joined him to Orthodoxy from the schism, convinced him that his first marriage with the schismatic Sukonshchikova was invalid, which is why he entered into a second marriage. 3 It is not known how Father Glagolev proved to Parfenov the invalidity of his, Parfenov’s, first marriage and why on the basis of this conviction Parfenov did not initiate proceedings against the invalidity of his marriage, and then voluntarily dissolved it and then, having concealed it, asked the Meshchansky Council for permission to enter into a church marriage with another woman as a single man? - Therefore, it is impossible that Fr. Glagolev, having undertaken to prove the invalidity of a schismatic marriage, did not at the same time point out to his patient the legal way by which the question of the validity or invalidity of a marriage is resolved: or. the defendant gave completely incorrect testimony, or did not accurately indicate what exactly the latter convinced him of. Glagolev was talking in this case not about the invalidity of marriage, but simply about the fact that from the point of view of church teaching and strictly church law, a schismatic marriage is not a marriage, but simply a prodigal cohabitation, which ends immediately as soon as one of the spouses converts to Orthodoxy, while the other remains in schism and does not express any claim to continue cohabitation. Whether such an assumption is fair or not in this case does not actually matter: not only Fr. Glagolev, but very many Orthodox priests both revered and should have revered a schismatic marriage not as a marriage, but as an adulterous union; for our state law, not to mention church law, considered him as such. In order not to go far for information in our legislation on this subject, let us turn to the speech of G. Koni himself. “Definitions and decrees,” he said, “of the subject authorities and institutions, with those remaining in 1808, 1826, 1834, 1840 and 1852. marriages of schismatics among themselves were excluded from the proceedings of the spiritual and civil authorities, and such marriages, married outside the church, in houses and chapels, were not recognized as legal, but were considered fornication, which is why civil laws on inheritance were not applied to their children.”4 To clarify the essence of the matter, the categorical, unconditional recognition of schismatic marriages as fornication is worthy of deep attention, even if they were married - not to mention at home, even in chapels according to the schismatic rite. The importance of this circumstance will be revealed immediately, as soon as we pose the question: how did the schismatics themselves look and look at their marriage, and how did they marry and marry their marriages? Anyone who has the most superficial understanding of schism will, of course, say that in order to resolve this issue it is necessary to distinguish between the schismatic priests and the non-priests - first of all. In ancient times, only the first ones recognized their marriage as a sacrament and were crowned with a church rite. As for the Bespopovites, they do not celebrate their marriages at all, and besides, in their very views on marriage, they have long and still sharply disagreed. Initially, they were all anti-marriageists, arguing that “beyond the scattering of the hands of sacred people,” marriage, as a sacrament, could no longer exist. But then they separated and continue to divide into two, sharply different parties. The conservative party, more consistent, still reveres marriage, in any form established - by filth, fornication, the other, so to speak progressive, established the so-called. “non-sacred marriage” recognizes the possibility of marriage without hierarchical blessing. According to her teaching, for the legality of a marriage, only the consent of the parties, the blessing of the parents, betrothal, witnesses, and legal marriage are required. “This teaching essentially coincides with the beginning of the so-called civil marriage” 5. It is true that there is also a religious element here: “the conclusion of marriages, based on the consent of the bride and groom to enter into an eternally indissoluble life, with the blessing of the parents and the performance of a prayer service, deliberately composed, has become a common occurrence among Moscow Pomeranians, attracting many non-resident communities to their side” 6. But nevertheless, this is a non-sacred marriage - by their own admission. And what kind of prayer service is this, not only performed, but even compiled by a layman? As for the first party (Fedoseevtsy), although recently these non-sacred marriages have begun to come into practice among them, nevertheless, these marriages are only a tolerable evil. “The Fedoseyevskaya newlywed is only a wife before the world, but a harlot before God. Therefore, she sometimes bore the title not of wife, but only of housekeeper, cook, companion, mistress of the house. Therefore, the Fedoseyevsky newly-wed is considered not a full member of the Fedoseyevsky community, is not allowed to attend general prayer, in case of childbirth is obliged to bear penance and is allowed to confession only in case of serious illness under the condition of a vow not to live with his wife anymore... The very methods of marriage, with a few exceptions, were distinguished by a strange originality: they consisted in the fact that, by agreement, the man secretly They took the girls away from their parents to their homes, and sometimes the girls ran away on their own, having delighted the property of their parents. The latter often knew all this, but pretended not to know, were cunning, and pretended that this was being done against their will. In the end, the matter was resolved by the parents of the bride and groom coming together, agreeing on a dowry and then going their separate ways. Now the matter is mostly done more directly: all marriage festivities are performed openly, with the exception, of course, of religious ceremonies; sometimes, however. There is a blessing of those getting married with icons. – This custom is rightly denounced by the wedding couple, noting that how can one bless a sinful deed. So. image. Fedoseev’s new wife is nothing more than an open concubinage, the strength of which is determined by purely personal relationships” 7. So, both according to the view of our state legislation and the view of the entire party of Fedoseevites - schismatics, a schismatic marriage is nothing more than a prodigal cohabitation. How can an Orthodox priest look at a schismatic marriage after this? Of course, as in prodigal cohabitation. But he should have looked at it this way only until 1874. and after this he must look at this marriage differently. He should look at it as a civil marriage, if only this marriage is recorded in the police register in compliance with the rules established for this by law. – This is how Attorney Rosenblum decided the question that concerns us. “Article 1554 applied to the defendant. St. about nak. - he wrote in his cassation appeal - provides for entering into a second marriage if there is another marriage, performed according to the orders of the Christian Church. The severity of the punishment in this case is determined by the violation of marriage, sanctified by the church and recognized by the teachings of the church as a sacrament. The importance of the religious element of marriage in the eyes of the law can be seen from a comparison of Art. 1554 and 1558 St. about the laws that punish bigamy completely differently among Christians and non-Christians 8 . It is therefore unfair and inconsistent with the spirit of the law to impose the same punishment for violating a marriage sanctified by the church and a schismatic marriage committed by means of registration in the police books. Before the law is issued. 19 Apr. 1874 on the marriages of schismatics, the latter were completely not recognized by law. But this law, which regulated the civil family relations of schismatics, did not, of course, have in mind to equalize the religious significance of a schismatic marriage with a marriage consecrated by the church. Due to the rules 19 Apr. 1874, when recording the marriages of schismatics in police registers, no certificates of prior performance of any schismatic marriage rites are required. Obviously, the law gives a special meaning to a schismatic marriage - the meaning of an exclusively civil marriage. From here it is clear that the application of the strict punishment prescribed under Art. 1554 to the violation of a schismatic marriage. St. contrary to the true meaning of marriage” 9. Although this opinion was refuted at the trial and had no influence on the outcome of the trial, however, considering it regardless of the purpose for which it was expressed (mitigating the punishment of the criminal), we find it worthy of full attention. In our opinion, it finds solid support for itself in the very text of the law of 1874. Rule 1-e of this law states: “marriages of schismatics acquire in civil terms through entry in the special metric books established for this purpose the force and consequences of a legal marriage. – This law clearly and categorically states that a) the marital cohabitation of schismatics only in a civil sense receives the force of a legal marriage, and that b) this property is acquired only through an entry in the police registers. But this law does not at all express the idea that, apart from this entry, it would attach any significance to a schismatic marriage, or see in a schismatic matched couple anything other than persons endowed with the civil rights of husband and wife. To assume the opposite means to assume at the same time that this law gave the meaning of a recognized religion to the schism itself, with its rituals, including its marriage ceremony. This opinion finds support in 2 and in such an authoritative interpretation of the law of 1874, which belongs to K. P. Pobedonostsev. In his course, civil. of law, he prefaces this law with the following remarks: “Anyone who knows our history and is familiar with the conditions of our people’s life will certainly agree that the existing church form of marriage, the only one with us, is possible, and right, and corresponds to the beliefs and needs of the people; follow there is no need or reason to leave or change it. The practical need to deviate from it can only arise in cases where those entering into marriage belong to a religion not recognized by the state. Such cases may present themselves to us and it remains to say a few words about them.” “It is known that we have a whole category of people who, not belonging to the ranks of the Gentiles, do not belong to the Orthodox Church. These are our schismatics. The state did not recognize their correct church union and church structure, just as it recognizes both among Gentiles of different confessions; traces in a schismatic, the quality of a citizen, in relation to the state, was completely and completely disconnected from the quality of a member of a well-known church: in the face of the state, a schismatic appears to be a citizen only in those features that do not concern the church. Hence a strange anomaly arose: every state and action, the legal significance of which is in connection with church establishment, was deprived of this significance for the schismatic, because the law does not recognize its connection with the church. So. arr. marriage among schismatics was deprived of the meaning of a legal marriage if it was not consecrated by a wedding in an Orthodox or Edinoverie church; Civil laws on inheritance rights were not applied to children born from such unconsecrated marriages. Dissenter mentors are prohibited from issuing marriage certificates, and although schismatic wives are entered by the police into philistine books, it was not allowed to mention marriages. So, although, according to police testimony, the wives and children of the schismatics of the priestly sect were classified as families, but on this basis alone it was forbidden for public places to recognize wives and children as legitimate without birth certificates; Meanwhile, the schismatics were completely forbidden to keep registries and traces. it was impossible to have metric certificates. Under such conditions, the family relations of the schismatics were presented as nothing more than a factual state that did not have legal firmness and definition. Not to mention the disadvantage that came from this for the schismatics themselves in civil life - such a state turned out to be extremely inconvenient for the state; for from the state's point of view it is impossible to allow such a large number of citizens to remain outside the law in all their family relations. In this state of lawlessness there was an internal contradiction, which sooner or later had to be resolved in law. As soon as the marriage is completed by mutual consent of the parties, with the consciousness of holiness, 10 permanence and indissolubility of the union between persons who, not belonging to a recognized church by their beliefs, do not submit to the church wedding rite, the question arises: under what conditions can this marriage be recognized as legal? This question, in any case, required resolution, and the more urgently, the further the circle of persons expanded, for whom, according to their social status, civil rights, combined with the legality of marriage and birth, are of particular importance. This issue was resolved with the publication in 1874 of new rules on schismatic marriages” 11. This is the opinion of our authoritative lawyer. Although it contains a schismatic marriage, established by law in 1874, it is not directly called a civil marriage, but it is directly and categorically opposed to church or religious marriage in general. According to K. P. Pobedonostsev’s own expression, the form of schismatic marriage is a deviation from the church form of marriage; “In a schismatic, the quality of a citizen is completely disconnected from the quality of a member of the church.” Of course, this matter cannot be imagined otherwise. For since no schismatic rite (including the rite of marriage), from the point of view of our law, does not constitute a recognized religious rite, and a schismatic marriage, taken in itself, is only an actual relationship between two persons of different sexes - only similar cohabitation, but illegitimate. It is clear that in legal form, certified by the police department, this hitherto factual state cannot acquire for itself anything more than the law and officially recognized and guaranteed event from the moment of recording by law. One cannot think that through a police certificate and a recording this conjugal cohabitation immediately receives religious sanction. It receives only a civil sanction, i.e. cohabiting spouses receive the civil rights of spouses (husband and wife) and their natural and hitherto - illegitimate children - property and rights - civil - legitimate children. True, this opinion also expresses the idea of ​​​​the moral element that forms this kind of union: “mutual consent, consciousness of the holiness, constancy, and indissolubility of the union”: but it is hardly possible to imagine any kind of human union that more or less continues completely alien to this moral element. Moreover, it is by no means possible to deny this element of civil marriage in many European countries, which has been elevated to the level of obligatory. So, the schismatic marriage established by the law of 1874 is, in all fairness, only a civil marriage, but by no means a church or religious marriage. The only thing that should be objected to Mr. Rosenblum is that he is completely unfounded in trying to prove the lesser crime of violating it compared to the crime of violating a church marriage. The 1874 law directly states that “a marriage recorded in the metric (i.e., police) register can be dissolved only by court in the cases specified in Art. 45 civil laws (X, part 1)” (right 12); from here it is clearly seen that the law assigns to this schismatic marriage the same principle of indissolubility as church marriage; traces It is unnecessary and we are talking about the unequal criminality of violating both from the point of view of our legislation. Chief Prosecutor of the Senate, A.F. Koni is trying to establish a different view of schismatic marriage. He wants to see in a schismatic marriage something higher than a civil marriage. Refuting the opinion of Mr. Rosenblum, he says: “First of all, the marriage of schismatics is not accomplished by entry into the registers of births - it is only legitimized by it; law in art. 48, 1 part X volume directly says that the marriage of schismatics through registration in the registers of births acquires the force and consequences of a legal marriage, and this entry indicates the very existence of the marriage, and Art. 11 and 13 rules on the metrical registration of marriages in volume IX speak of “a schismatic who wants his marriage to be recorded in the metrical register” and about persons “who have information about the obstacles to recording a marriage in the metrical register.” It is permissible to strongly disagree with this interpretation of the law. It would be correct provided that the law recognized as marriage the conjugal cohabitation of schismatics from the day of its conclusion in a private house or in a schismatic chapel, and not from the date of entry in the register of parishes. Similar cases occur in church marriages, the metric record of which and even the search record for some reason are missing: the event and reality of the marriage, and in such cases are completely provable without a metric record and without a search - namely by verifying the event of the wedding through the testimony of the clergyman who performed it and the witnesses who were at the wedding even just as spectators. From the moment of the wedding, the existence of the marriage begins, at least its certification occurred 50 years later. – This is not how things work with schismatic marriages established in 1874. Art. The 11th rule clearly and directly says that “the existence of marriage, schismatics is considered proven from the day of entry in the metric book, or..... from the time he was initially reported (to the police department). From here it is clear that, from the point of view of the law, the actually begun and continued conjugal cohabitation of a schismatic couple - in itself - before being recorded in the registry register, was not a marriage; it became a marriage only from the moment it was recorded in the registry register. After this, how can one not assert that a schismatic marriage posits its existence and is established through recording? At the same time, one should not lose sight of the procedure that precedes and which accompanies this metrical recording. This is the procedure: “A schismatic who wishes to have his marriage recorded in the registry must notify the police or volost administration of his permanent place of residence in writing or verbally, indicating the name, title and condition of both spouses (Article 3). According to such notification, the police or township department draws up a special announcement each time and displays it within 7 days in a visible place at the doors of the department (Article 4). Anyone who has information about obstacles to recording an announced marriage in the registry register is obliged to let the police or volost authorities know about it in writing or in words (Article 5). After 7 days from the day when the announcement was posted, the rural municipality or police department issues a certificate to the person who has declared a desire to register his marriage in the birth register, stating that the announcement established by Article 4 was made, as well as whether any legal obstacle to the said entry was declared on anyone’s side, and if such a statement was made, then what exactly it consists of (Article 6). To record a marriage in the registry, both spouses must personally appear at the police department indicated below (Article 21) and present the certificate issued by them about the announcement made. Regardless of this, each spouse must present two guarantors to certify that the marriage being reported to the police is not prohibited by law. The testimony given by the guarantors is stated in writing and signed by them, and if they are illiterate, by those whom they trust (Article 7). Persons wishing to register their marriage are required to submit permits established by Articles 6 and 9 of the Civil Laws (9, Part 1, Article 8). Before recording the marriage in the registry register, both spouses are required to sign that they belong to the schism from birth and are not married according to the rules of the Orthodox Church or according to the rites of another confession recognized in the state. The performance of marriage rites observed between schismatics prior to the registration of marriage is not subject to the supervision of police officials” (Article 9). As can be seen from here, the procedure for recording a schismatic marriage is a whole ritual that is completely consistent with the announcement and search performed in the Orthodox Church, a ritual performed by police officials, but at the same time this ritual in the eyes of the law has greater significance - the meaning of the marriage act: for only from the moment of its commission does the existence of a legal schismatic marriage begin (Article 11). At the same time, this ritual is almost in no way inferior to the consummatory act of a civil marriage: what is missing here is only an appeal to the spouses by the official: do they have a voluntary desire to get married and do they promise to be faithful to each other! But this is naturally assumed here, when everyone, even third parties, is given the right to declare obstacles to marriage and when those getting married are obliged to personally appear at the police station, each with two guarantors. Isn't this a civil marriage? “When discussing the draft law on April 19, 1874,” Mr. A.F. Koni continues to argue his opinion, “it was expressed that the establishment of an exclusively civil marriage would not correspond to the spirit of our legislation, which has always recognized the marriage union as a primarily spiritual union, extending the force of this fundamental rule not to all subjects of the Empire. Therefore, if the rites of schismatics cannot be assigned the same significance with the rites of not only the Orthodox Church, but also of other religions recognized in the state, and therefore it is necessary to require, in order to legitimize schismatic marriages, the observance of a special formality, in the form of a civil act; then, due to very important moral respects, it cannot be considered desirable that schismatics limit themselves when entering into marriage to fulfilling only the said formality without any spiritual rite and thus elevate their marriage to the meaning of a simple contract, requiring only an appearance at the police department. As a result of these considerations, the State Council believed, completely eliminating government interference in the worship and rituals of schismatics, to express in the new law the general idea that a civil act acquires legal force only to such a union of husband and wife, for which they laid a moral foundation by prayer and asking God for blessings according to the rules of their belief. This is the meaning and significance of the expression of the law: “marriages of schismatics acquire the force and consequences of a legal marriage” 12. To correctly evaluate this argument, the following considerations should be taken into account:]) at a superficial glance, it acquires the power of persuasiveness due to the inaccurate use of the term “marriage”. G. Koni uses it indifferently to name the union of a husband and wife, sanctified by the church, or approved by the police department in word for a legal marriage, and for sexual cohabitation between a man and a woman or illegal. Therefore, for the sake of separateness and clarity of thinking, we will replace in the above tirade of Mr. Koni - where necessary - the word marriage with the word congenial cohabitation and then the following will result. a) “It is necessary to require special formalities to be observed in order to legitimize schismatic submarital unions (and not marriages) ... (in the same way - reasoning by analogy - as special formalities are required to legitimize illegitimate children). Here, as can be seen clearly, our replacement of an imprecise term with an accurate one did not in the least weaken the fidelity of the thought expressed by Mr. Koni. But look what happens through this replacement of terms in Mr. Koni's further thought. The validity of the mutation of terms that we have made is affirmed on the basis of our law, which, both before 1874 and after it, did not recognize or call schismatic conjugal cohabitations, even if they were marriages founded by prayer and blessing, and cohabiting couples - that is, a man and a woman as “husband” and “wife”. And of course he did and is doing well and correctly. So. image. prayer and asking God for blessings from schismatics lay the basis not for marriage, but for the conjugal cohabitation of an unmarried person with an unmarried woman, or, as the schismatics themselves put it, “a sinful affair.” b) For greater clarity, let us present in a similar parallel the last words of the above tirade from Mr. Koni’s speech. In other words, the meaning of the law of 1874 is that the police metric record conveys the force of a legal marriage to conjugal cohabitation that has already occurred, but has not yet been under the protection of the law. This act is obviously tantamount to the act of adopting and legitimizing illegitimate children. By this last act, illegitimate children are transformed into legitimate children not by birth, but by legitimation; Likewise, the metrical marriage record transforms submarital cohabitation into a legal marriage not from the moment of conception of sexual intercourse or the performance of a schismatic rite, but from the moment of entry into the metric book: here is the basis of a schismatic civil marriage. 2) G. Koni says: “due to very important moral respects, it cannot be considered desirable that schismatics limit themselves when entering into marriage to fulfilling only the designated formality without any spiritual rite and thus reduce their union to the meaning of a simple contract, requiring only an appearance at the police department.” To this, it should be noted, firstly: but even when introducing civil marriages in the states of Europe, the governments of Europe were not at all alien to the desire that those entering into this civil marriage would place its moral basis both in prayer and in a church wedding according to the rite of their religion: however, they did not think of honoring the civil marriage they were introducing as a non-civil marriage. On what basis will we consider the act of legitimizing a prenuptial union, committed by the police department, to be an act higher than a civil act? Moreover, it must be borne in mind that we are talking about a marital or submarital relationship: but it is unnecessary to interpret that sometimes a relationship, from the point of view of the law, is criminal, has a highly moral basis in terms of the depth of mutual devotion and selfless love for each other of lovers and for children illegitimately born to them. But is this side of spouses or lovers accepted and should be taken into account by the law when deciding the issue of the legal validity of one or another of these unions? The purpose of introducing schismatic marriage was one - to streamline and regulate sexual relations between schismatics and to accept under the protection of the law the children who were the fruit of these relations. Secondly, by saying that “it cannot be considered desirable that schismatics limit themselves to performing only the said formality “without any spiritual rite” when entering into marriage, Mr. Koni becomes entangled in a whole network of contradictions from which, apparently, there is no way out: for, firstly, how can it be desirable from the point of view of the law to perform a rite that the same law does not recognize as a rite? Secondly, how can one recognize as marriage actual cohabitation recorded in the registry book, but which began without any ritual (which is quite possible among the non-priests) and recognize as criminal cohabitation that began with the earnest performance of a ritual (which is done among the priests), but not recorded in the registry? One of two things remains: either to recognize the significance of the marriage ceremony behind the schismatic rite of marriage: but then we will have to recognize the schismatic marriage, which is not recorded in the registry, as a marriage, and not a criminal cohabitation, as the law orders to recognize, in which case it will be necessary to elevate the schism itself to the level of a recognized religion, or - to recognize the police metric registration as the only act establishing a schismatic marriage and traces. recognize the latter as a purely civil marriage: only in the latter case can a sharp contradiction with current legislation be avoided. In the second half of his speech, Mr. Koni touches on an even more important and interesting question: how does the Orthodox Church relate to marriages of people of other faiths and in particular schismatics, when both spouses of other faiths or one of them turn to the Orthodox Church? In response to this question, we read the following reasoning: “In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (7, 12 – 13 and 14) Ap. Paul says: if a brother has an unfaithful wife, and she is pleased to live with him, let him not leave her; and the wife, even if she has a husband, is unfaithful and deigns to live with her, but does not leave him. Hallowed for the husband to be unfaithful in relation to his wife is faithful, and the wife to be unfaithful towards her husband is faithful: otherwise your children would be evil spirits. Confirming himself on these words of the Apostle, St. John Chrysostom in his 19th conversation says: having a wife who was not called back, you were called, for the sake of faith do not cast out your wife. Finally the 6th Omni. The Council solemnly recognized the power and correctness of a marriage concluded before one of the spouses entered the church, decreeing in canon 72: if there is unfaithfulness in a legal marriage and then the unfaithful husband comes to faith, but the wife is still obsessed with flattery and still wants to live with her faithful husband, let them not be separated. – It is precisely on this broad, tolerant and imbued with the hope of spiritual enlightenment of the unbelieving view of the church that the considerations that formed the basis of the laws on marriages of newly baptized persons, depicted in Articles 79 to 84 of Volume 10 of the Law, are obviously based. Citizen, and according to the strength of the first of them, a person of non-Christian confession according to the perception of St. baptism can be in monogamous cohabitation with an unbaptized wife; their marriage remains in force; and without approval of the wedding according to the rules of the Orthodox Church; according to Art. The 81st conversion to Orthodoxy of a Jew does not dissolve his marriage if the spouse who remains in Judaism wishes to live with the convert, and on the basis of the latter, the marriage of non-Christians remains in force even when both spouses convert to Christianity, even if it was committed in degrees of kinship prohibited by the church. But if such decrees exist regarding non-Christians, then they are even more applicable to schismatics. It is not without reason that, according to the testimony of an expert on the mutual relations of Orthodoxy and the schism, Archimandrite Paul of the St. Nicholas Monastery of Edinoverie, (in the schism of the famous Paul of Prussia), for the sanctification of the marital cohabitation of spouses, from whom one of the schism converted to Orthodoxy, the church does not require a church wedding at all, but recognizes the consent and blessing of the priest as sufficient.” The thought “about the broad, tolerant and imbued with hope for the spiritual enlightenment of the unbelieving view of the church” is an absolutely correct thought. And to what extent for the purposes of the prosecution it was necessary to disclose it - this was done by Mr. Koni. But in relation to the general question that concerns us about the essence of schismatic marriage and the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards it, it deserves further disclosure. First of all, we must point out here the fact that the legislation of the ancient ecumenical church, formulating its definitions about various aspects of human life and, among other things, about marriage, encountered along this path the definitions of these aspects by Roman and Greco-Roman law, the classical accuracy of the terminology and formulas of which is well known. Thanks to this happy coincidence of circumstances, the canon law of the Universal Church contains such precise definitions and distinctions of many aspects of marriage and family life, which the language of, for example, our civil law does not yet have, and thanks to which, in the light of this canonical legislation, many puzzling questions of the current law are easily resolved, sometimes puzzling simply due to the lack of development of our legal language. The family and the basis of its marriage among the Romans, as never before and nowhere else, were imbued with a legal element: the relations of family members were imbued with the almost unlimited monarchism of the head of the house - paterfamilias: his wife, and children, as well as other household members, were unconditionally subordinate to him. Such power was created for the head of the family by legal origin and, of course, legal marriage (matrimonium legetimum). Naturally, it happened that in the concept of marriage among the Romans, this legal element was in the foreground - the power of the husband over his wife and over children; the moral and physical elements (sexual intercourse) faded far into the background. A Roman citizen could have sexual relations with a free (concubina) woman and with his slave: he was the former’s lover, could have children with her, and could break this connection whenever he pleased. This relationship was not considered criminal: but it did not give him any power over his cohabitant (if she was free), nor did she or the children born from such cohabitation have any rights: these were not legitimate children; These were children given by nature - liberi naturales. – As a result of this view of the essence of legal marriage and in the very form of concluding and performing it, the civil situation also had a predominant importance: any religious rites were considered almost a luxury, a pomp characteristic only of the most noble families. So Roman marriage was, in the strictest sense of the word, a civil marriage. Nevertheless, the sanctity of the family hearth found a very strong guarantee in the cruel criminal punishments determined by its violator. Thus, adultery was punishable by death: moreover, the husband had the right to personally kill, without trial, his wife who cheated on him and her lover, as well as all those who assisted him in committing the crime. The kidnapper of a girl who even agreed to marry him and the latter entered into marriage with her was punished by death along with all accomplices of his crime. Next to this fortress of marriage ties, in the proper sense, there existed a multitude of similar unions - concubinage, cohabitation between a master and his slave, and, so to speak, volatile sexual relations - fornication: only the latter were punishable, considered crimes against public morals. How did the Church now treat these types of marriage? She considered only the first type of marriage to be an indissoluble union, which gave cohabitants the rights of husband and wife, and the civil form of its conclusion, from the point of view of the church, did not in the least serve as an obstacle to the recognition of this indissolubility. Yes, it could not be otherwise: for what significance could any pagan religious rites have for the church? For her, it is more important if the marriage took place according to the laws determined by the state authorities than if it took place according to any pagan rites; a legal – civil marriage – was more important than a religious pagan one. For there is no power unless it comes from God, but the powers that exist are created by God. But the pagan religious rite had no significance in the eyes of the church; For what fellowship does Christ have with Belial? From here it happened that whether both legal spouses, or one of them, turned to the faith of Christ, the church did not consider itself to actually dissolve their legal marriage, but sanctified it, introducing into the consciousness of the spouses the conviction that they are now bound not only by the external civil law, but also by the moral law, the law of Christian love, equally obligatory for both husband and wife 13. How did you sanctify it? She consecrated with the sacraments that were performed on those entering the church directly, namely the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and communion. If both spouses entered the church, then in these sacraments there is an inherent power to completely sanctify these new people with all their natural functions, to make their marriage union, concluded in paganism, holy and the children from this marriage that have come and are about to come – pure. If one of the spouses turned to faith - it was still husband or wife, and if the one who remained in unbelief expressed a desire to continue the marriage: the church believed that by pouring out grace-filled mystical gifts on only one spouse, she sanctified with them both the other and the fruits of their marital union - their children. Disbelief here was not an obstacle to the holiness of marriage: for divine grace is stronger than the sinful state of a spouse who is in unbelief: the marriages of such spouses of different faiths do not have anything criminal in themselves: for the faithful spouse did not commit a crime against a legal marriage, did not leave his spouse who wanted to cohabit with him. On the contrary, a crime on the part of a believing spouse would be to end the marriage against the wishes of the unbelieving party. How highly the church looked at state marriage laws is evident from the fact that, firstly, it refused to recognize as marriage a union that took place without the consent of the father, even though in all other respects it was a completely legal union 14. Secondly, from the fact that she refused to communicate with those Christians who were in premarital relationships permitted by law, for example. concubinage and cohabitation between a master and a slave: they were not husband and wife from the point of view of state law; The church did not recognize them as such either. These unions, according to her teaching, are adultery 15. Recognizing civil marriage as an indissoluble union, the church, however, made a precise distinction between the merits of marriages - from its own point of view. Thus, she considered only the first marriage of a young man and a girl to be a holy, venerable union. The second marriage, that is, a widower with a widow, or a widower with a girl, or, on the contrary, a young man with a widow, or with a divorced or abandoned husband, with a prostitute, an actress, the church considered only a tolerant union - a cure against fornication. She considered the third marriage all the less honorable. As for the 4th, she directly called him unworthy not only of a Christian, but even of a person - a downright bestial custom. The practical consequence of this distinction was that only a person who was or was in a first marriage was admitted to the clergy; a second marriage, either mutually or unilaterally, the second, not to mention the third, was always considered an absolute obstacle to entering the clergy. But the Church considered the first legal marriage (matrimonium legitimum) to be an impeccable union only on the condition that it did not contradict its laws on marriage: thus, the marriage of persons concluded in close degrees of kinship was considered an absolute obstacle to entering the clergy (Apostolic Laws 19; sn. 5 Laws Theoph. Alexander.) This is the point of view of the canon law of the Eastern Church on marriage. Armed with all its measures against the licentiousness of the morals of the ancient world and society, especially sexual promiscuity, the church strictly distinguished between the concepts of marriage and fornication, even if the latter was considered permitted cohabitation; the concepts are different: husband - wife; roommate and his girlfriend - hetaera, concubine. This distinction of concepts should be kept in mind as when reading the Apostolic commandment: “Unless a brother has a wife, I will not return” and so on. So it is when judging the merits of schismatic marriages of the present time. Only cohabitation that is similar from a church point of view, which began before the spouses were outside the church, can be tolerated after one of them appeals to the church, which gives the cohabitants the rights of husband and wife - rights guaranteed by law; However, other types of similar marriages are not marriage, not the beginning of marriage, but sin and transgression of God’s law. If we now accept this point of view to the judgments expressed in Mr. Koni’s speech about the attitude of the Orthodox Church to schismatic conjugal cohabitations, then we will have to recognize them as not entirely correct. Arguing that the church (?) does not at all require a church wedding to sanctify the marital cohabitation of spouses, one of whom has converted to Orthodoxy, but recognizes the consent and blessing of the priest as sufficient” - Mr. Koni in the 1st does not accurately convey the idea of ​​the article by Fr. Paul (Prussian), which he used when composing his speech. Father Paul does not at all present his opinion as the teaching or view of the church, but directly calls it his opinion 16. This makes a big difference. For if the Orthodox Church held such an opinion, then the article by Fr. Paul; but the fact of the matter is that the church has never expressed such a definite and categorical definition, and in fact, as can be seen from the article itself by Fr. Paul's practice of Orthodox bishops in this regard. different, as we think it should be. Why? Because the types of similar schismatic cohabitations that those who cohabit before turning to the Orthodox Church are very different. It is really impossible to equate the cohabitation of an extreme Fedoseyev with his housekeeper - the cohabitation of the lower Roman concubinate - with the cohabitation of schismatics - priests, the beginning of which was laid by a sincere church rite, although stolen from the church and illegally performed. In the first case, that is, when a non-priest - a marriage-borrower converts to Orthodoxy, the Orthodox bishop must be guided by the rule of St. Basil the Great, that fornication is not marriage and not the beginning of marriage, and it is advisable to dissolve this unworthy of an Orthodox Christian cohabitation with a concubine, whom neither the civil law, nor the cohabitant himself, nor his relatives and friends, nor she herself recognizes as a wife. In the 2nd case, the consent and blessing of the priest is sufficient. Why? Yes, because it is impossible to perform a perfect wedding of this marriage: for only one of the spouses has transferred to the church, and the other is still outside it and may be in a fight with it: but the church conveys its blessing only to its children, and is by no means obliged to honor with such a high honor as a church wedding people outside of it and opposing it, especially since the spouse who remains in the schism himself despises prayers, blessings and church honor. But on the other hand, here too there are quite possible circumstances in which it is more convenient for the priest to adhere to the rule. St. Basil the Great - that is, to advise a spouse who has turned to the church to dissolve a previous schismatic marriage; This is precisely what should be advised when the half remaining in the schism does not reveal a particularly persistent demand to remain in cohabitation with the other - in her opinion, having betrayed her convictions. It is possible that the appeal of one half to the church will affect the other by increasing fanatical hatred of the church, and this hatred will also be reflected in her personal relationship with her former partner. What guarantee, in this case, will remain for both halves that even in this relationship that has arisen as a result of one spouse’s conversion to the church, their marital and family union will remain strong? Their mutual sympathy for each other was shaken due to a change in faith by one of them; the law does not guarantee either one or the other against adultery: what remains between them to strengthen their union? So, let the Orthodox half retreat from its former half: there is more. Only unshakable conjugal devotion to each other, according to the teachings of St. Vesilius the Great, deserves leniency. Secondly, the design and tone of Mr. Koni’s speech inspires the idea that the Orthodox Church attaches importance to schismatic marriages almost equal to marriages married in the Orthodox Church, that in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, a schismatic marriage is such a venerable union in itself that it does not need a church wedding, but only the consent and blessing of the priest. “Only if we do not understand the meaning that the word “schism” has in the Russian language and if we forget the causes and conditions of the origin of that important historical and everyday phenomenon of Russian life, which is characterized by this word, it can be argued that the marriage of schismatics legitimized by the authorities should stand in the eyes of the law and popular opinion, the law of which is a reasonable exponent even below marriage among non-Christians and, consequently, among the nomadic pagan tribes of the far north, where the conclusion of a marriage expressed... in full payment of the dowry and taking away the bride.... This is not how the church and its teachers view it (?!). Further in the speech there is a reference to the commandment of the Apostle Paul, the conversation of Chrysostom, 72 rights. Trull Cathedral, in general - at the beginning of the article about. Paul (Prussian). In our opinion, this formulation of the question contains a very important misunderstanding. The church attaches great importance not to schismatic marriage, not to schismatic weddings, but to the act of conversion to Orthodoxy, the sacraments, blessings and priestly prayers performed on persons turning to the church from the schism. This is also confirmed by the above-mentioned article about. Paul (Prussian). Yes, it cannot be otherwise: for how can the Orthodox Church or could it recognize as marriage what the clear articles of our law categorically recognized as illegal cohabitation? On the other hand, why on earth would the Orthodox Church recognize any sanctifying significance to schismatic rites (for example, marriage) when our law itself does not yet attach any significance to them? In this last respect, the Church should judge not more leniently, but more strictly than the law. And if she, in fact, does not honor the wedding of her marital cohabitation, which began before those who were members of them entered the church, then for completely different reasons, and not out of respect for the schismatic clergy. To clarify the matter, you need to pay attention to the following circumstances: before the publication of the law of 1874 on the legalization of schismatic marital cohabitations through an entry in the police register, there were no other means of legitimizing these cohabitations other than their church wedding, or simply the conversion to Orthodoxy of one or both spouses. Our civil law of that time was completely content to recognize a schismatic marriage as legal if one of the spouses converted to Orthodoxy and his marital cohabitation was recorded by the priest who converted him in the church registry book, but whether the full wedding ceremony was performed, or only a bishop's or priest's blessing - he did not pay attention to this, leaving this matter to the diocesan authorities. Clear evidence of this is found in the article about. Paul “In the blessed memory,” he says, “of the ever-memorable Philaret, in the Edinoverie church, now entrusted to my management of the monastery, which was then only a parish church, in the last years of the life of Emperor Nicholas 1, many were added to St. church according to the rite of unification from the sect of the non-priests, so that a whole parish was formed and those who married in the schism before joining St. Many were annexed to the church, but none of them were married in a church wedding or forced to do so, but were only inscribed in the registers of birth: such and such a husband’s wife. And another noteworthy example of joining St. churches from the Austrian false hierarchy of Anthony Shutov, protodeacon Kirill Zagadaev. Since the Orthodox Church does not accept any other sacrament other than baptism, Zagadaev, by order of Bishop Philaret, was annexed to St. church through the sacrament of St. anointing, and then made a deacon to our church. And the wedding over him was not repeated. And it could not be repeated, because his wife was not yet joined to the church, and was even a zealot of the schism. Subsequently, Zagadaev moved to St. Petersburg and, after his wife joined St. church, His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, ordained a priest...... I will also give you the opposite case, i.e., one where those who were annexed were re-married, which, however, gave rise to doubts. In the Kherson diocese, one of the priestless schism, namely Thomas Chernev, was destined by the Right Reverend Nikanor upon joining, to be ordained a priest of the Edinoverie Church. He was joined by the rector of the seminary and upon joining he was married. Then the consistory raised a question: could he be ordained a priest, because his cohabitation in the schism before the wedding was illegal? The matter was brought to the Holy Synod and the Holy Synod was allowed to produce Fr. Thomas as a priest. In 1880, Moscow resident Vasily Fedorov Mozhaev joined the church in the Chudov Monastery with his wife and children from the priestly schism in the Austrian hierarchy. They were joined by His Eminence Alexy, Vicar of Moscow (later Archbishop of Vilna). The wedding over them was not repeated, only His Grace Alexy, after joining, read over the spouses, with a blessing of his hand, the final prayer prescribed in the wedding rite: Father and Son and the Holy Spirit ... and this was the sacred blessing of the spouses” 17. Having presented these examples of the differences in church practice in the matter of church legalization of schismatic marriages, which, despite its differences, the civil law did not recognize, however (as it should still recognize, as sufficient for the recognition of schismatic marriages as legal, Father Paul also expresses his opinion regarding the advantages of one or another way of church legalization of schismatic marriages. “In my opinion,” he says, “it is very convenient to do what I did.” Right Reverend Alexy, that is, with the blessing of the hand, read the prayer: Father, Son and Holy Spirit... This can always be done and written down in the registers of birth, that the marriage is confirmed by a church blessing and sacred prayer. Right Reverend Alexy told me that such an order about marriages of persons joining the Holy Church is also in the decrees of the Holy Church. Synod; He also studied church jurisprudence with all thoroughness, and therefore I took his method of action in this case as a model, reasoning that the power of the sacred blessing can be accomplished by looking and in a short prayer, especially since the very rite of the wedding is set out in ancient printed books, both more extensively and more briefly.” With this opinion about. Paul, especially with his last words, we also agree, as with an opinion that has firm canonical and legal support for ourselves, and we affirm, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Koni, that schismatic cohabitation by conversion to Orthodoxy is ecclesiastically legitimized by hierarchical approval, blessing and sanctification, and in itself, taken before the influence of the church, cohabitation is illegal, fornicating, and from the point of view of civil law (unless it was civilly legalized in basis of the law of 1874) and from the church point of view. But at the same time, in the judgments of Fr. Paul, we cannot help but note the same instability and inaccuracy in the use of the terms marriage, matrimony, which we noted in Mr. Koni’s speech, just as we cannot help but point out the not entirely appropriate reference of both to the commandment of the Apostle. Paul, word of St. Chrysostom and the 72nd rule of the Trullo Council. The words of these authorities do not apply to our schismatics. Namely: both the Apostle Paul and St. Chrysostom and the Trullo Council have in mind a pagan - legal in the civil sense marriage: but similar cohabitations of schismatics were not recognized as legal marriages until 1874, and they are not recognized as such now, unless they are legalized through an entry in the police register. Neither a devout priestly wedding, nor a priestless priestly ceremony are the means that in themselves legitimize the conjugal cohabitation of schismatics, either from the point of view of civil or from the point of view of church law. Taking into account everything we have said so far, we consider ourselves to have the right to insist on the following provisions, on which we can build an answer to the question: what is a schismatic marriage? 1) A schismatic marriage, certified in the police register, is a legal marriage in the civil sense and the spouses in it are husband and wife in the exact sense. When they turn to the Orthodox Church, this civilly recognized legal marriage of theirs should, in our opinion, in one way or another receive sanctification from the church. How exactly - the following circumstances can be taken into account when resolving this issue: 2) In judgments about all the sacred rites of the schism, one can adhere to two points of view: either the strict accuracy of the law, canonical, or condescension towards those drawn into the schism due to their personal circumstances that favored the passion. From the point of view of canonical rigor, every schismatic sacred act is nothing more than theft and sacrilege and has no power or significance. For the Apostolic Canon (31st) is clear: “If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, holds separate meetings and erects another altar, without convicting the bishop of anything contrary to piety and truth by the court, “let him be cast out as a covetous man: for he is a thief of power.” Considered from this point of view, a schismatic rite performed by a fugitive Orthodox ordained presbyter or priest of Austrian ordination is even more criminal the closer it is performed to the church rite, the more similar it is in appearance. To clarify this, the following analogy can serve: several criminals are accused in a criminal court - forgers of government credit cards or passports. Their criminal work is not of equal merit: some of the criminals fabricated banknotes so crudely that even an inexperienced eye would notice their falsity, while others, on the contrary, fabricated them so well that even a knowledgeable state treasury official would have difficulty distinguishing them from the real ones. The question now is: is the skillful criminal work of the latter a less serious crime than the crude work of the former? On the contrary, the art of work in this case is a circumstance that increases guilt, not alleviates it. This is how we should judge schismatic sacred rites: they are the more harmful for the church, the more seductive, the closer and more similar they are to the sacred rites of the church, just as for the state, banknotes forged are incomparably more harmful than banknotes that are crudely fabricated. This is a rational and fair basis - why, from the point of view of our state law, schismatics are denied state recognition of their devout rituals - while various heterodox confessions, Jewry and Mohammedanism - are recognized as permitted religions. The latter, precisely because of their sharp difference with the sacred rites of the Orthodox Church, are less harmful to it than the sacred rites of the schismatic priests. Some were invented outside the church, others were stolen directly from it. But the law of the Orthodox Church allows for the possibility, in respect of the circumstances of those turning from schism, of a more lenient attitude towards them. The beginning The leaders of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, or the Beglopopovites, of course, knew all the vile lies of what they had started and committed, but the simpletons who were involved in the deception may have treated and still treat the false priesthood of this false hierarchy with complete faith, just as millions of Russian subjects often use forged credit notes with full faith that they are using genuine state notes. Imagine now that these people who were carried away in schism from childhood, from the cradle, who grew up in schism and who became bride and groom by the will and blessing of their parents, step beyond the threshold of the schismatic chapel, express before the false priest, as before God’s priest, their promises of fidelity to each other and the inviolability of their union, and in their conscience they realize that from that moment they are husband and wife in the eyes of God, aware of all obligations the inviolability of these promises, then throughout their entire lives they strictly observe their duties, raising their children not only with natural parental love, but also in the spirit, in their conviction, of the church. - Is it really possible that after this, this union of theirs, this family they created, should be considered fornication, cohabitation similar to marriage, inferior in moral dignity, for example? a priestless marriage witnessed by a police official? It is hardly possible to thoroughly answer this question in the affirmative. If we judge with such severity for the hobby of deception, then more than half of the subjects of the state will have to be found guilty of counterfeiting and distributing counterfeit coins. What should an Orthodox hierarch (or priest) do when accepting both spouses into the church with the children born and raised by them in the family thus founded? In our opinion, he should accept them as spouses, considering it completely unnecessary to bring them to the church to perform the mysterious sacred rite of marriage over them. If he acts differently, if he takes this couple to the church and decides to perform the sacred rite of marriage over them: then at the very beginning of the rite, he can hear from the bride and groom he is marrying, for example. the following words: “we have already heard this in our youth; We have already made these promises and have striven to the best of our ability to remain faithful to them to this day: here are our children and those who know us are witnesses that we are telling the truth, why now promise us again what we have already fulfilled? “It seems to us that after such a statement, the continuation of the sacred rite is no longer possible; and even if such a statement had not been made, then the very fact of long-term marital fidelity and sacredly fulfilled parental duties should warn the priest from performing a marriage ceremony over such heads of the family, as if over the bride and groom. No, it is not the performance of the sacred rite of marriage that is necessary here: for it would only be a repetition of the previously performed sacred rite, but only a strictly religious conversation of the priest with these husband and wife, that they, although in a roundabout indirect way, were nevertheless brought to an honest marriage life and must remember that they made their vows not to the deceiver in the form of the priest who married them, but to God Himself - with the testimony of this deceiver, therefore granting judgment on last to God Himself, they must remember throughout their entire lives that they will be responsible before the same Judge only for deviating from what they themselves promised. Such a conversation should only end with a blessing for the continuation of the marriage and the prayerful approval of the priest, or even better, the bishop (according to the above-mentioned modus operandi of the Right Reverend Alexy). To support our opinion, we present the following canonical grounds: 1) According to the strictly canonical norm, the sacrament of St. baptism must be performed by the bishop and presbyter without fail in the cathedral church: only out of condescension for the painful situation of the person being baptized is it permissible, with the permission of the bishop, to perform it in a house church or even in a house. So according to the exact church rule. However, the Church recognizes the full power of the sacrament even if, in view of the imminent mortal danger, it is performed by a layman (midwife), provided that a threefold immersion is performed with the correct pronunciation of the final words of the sacrament. The Church recognizes the power of the sacrament both for schismatic baptism and the baptism of renegades, according to the clear rule of St. Basil the Great: “and baptism from a heretic is unpleasant, but from a schismatic and from a sub-church member (an unauthorized gathering) it is pleasant” 18. The basis for this distinction between heretical and schismatic baptism is the image of the sacrament: heretical baptism is unpleasant because, having distorted the teaching about the Persons of St. Trinity, heretics have changed the very image of baptism, meanwhile, schismatics are mainly guilty of opposing the church and of appropriating to themselves the power to perform sacred rites, which belongs only to persons of the hierarchy canonically, or correctly ordained, but they perform them correctly and earnestly, as they like to put it, and if in fairness they can be denied a full understanding of what they are doing, then it is not always possible to deny them a sincere desire to do it sacredly. The Holy Church attaches such importance to the confession of faith in the Consubstantial Persons of the Most Holy Trinity that it does not doubt in the least the validity of baptism performed with the exact confession of the Holy Trinity and in Her name, even if only by a layman. Condemning the schism as opposition to the church, as sacrilege, she accepts those baptized in the schism as Christians. 2) The rules of the church prescribe to observe the difference between “representatives of wickedness” and simpletons, carried away (into heresy or schism) out of simplicity, out of need, etc. circumstances. In this case, it is prescribed to treat the former with the utmost severity and be lenient towards the latter” 19 . On these grounds, we believe that marriages of schismatics, committed in schism when the spouses converted to Orthodoxy, according to their moral dignity, can be distinguished in the following way: 1) Marriages married according to the Old Orthodox rite in schismatic chapels can be left in full force without performing a wedding ceremony - even if they were not entered in the police register. 2) Marriages of Bespopovites, regardless of whether they were entered or not entered into the police register, must be married in the Orthodox Church either in full rite (precisely marriages of Fedoseevites) or in some abbreviated manner (marriages of Pomeranians) - completion. 3) If only one of the spouses of the non-priestly persuasion turns to the Orthodox Church, then his marital cohabitation with the one remaining in the schism is indissoluble only when this cohabitation is recorded in the police register; if it is not written down, then the spouse who has converted to Orthodoxy can, as a person free from marriage ties, marry an Orthodox person according to the rites of the church. 4) If both spouses, having turned to the church from a priestless sense, do not wish to sanctify their marriage, recorded in the police book with a church wedding; then the church should treat this cohabitation as tolerable by civil law, but regard it as nothing more than a concubinage and in no way honor the person in it with any sacred degree, guided by the apostolic rule: “every bigamist or having a concubina is not sacred.” By offering these considerations to the attention of mainly Orthodox pastors, we had nothing more in mind than to highlight the great ecclesiastical importance of the question posed in the title of the article, and only to outline (and not at all predetermine) those points that must be authoritatively decided by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority - the Holy Governing Synod. In view of the great vital importance of these points, the opinion of a private person should not have a decisive significance here. Printing is permitted. January 15th, 1895. Rector of the Academy Archimandrite Anthony. Reprint from Nos. 2 and 3 of the Theological Bulletin for 1895. ______________________________________________________________ 2nd printing house of A.I. Snegireva, in Sergiev Posad, M.g. Russian Ved. 1894 Nos. 291, 292. K.N. Pobedonostsev, Civil Course. rights. Part 2, 1131.3, St. Petersburg. 1889 p. 68. Prof. N. Ivanovsky; A guide to the history and denunciation of the Old Believer schism. Kazan. 1887 p. 100. Prof. N. Ivanovsky: 1. p. pp. 104 105 Art. 1554–51: “Whichever of the persons of the Christian faith who are in a marital union enters into a new marriage, while the first one exists, is subject to deprivation of all... rights and benefits and exile to live in Siberia or transfer to correctional prison companies.” Art. 1558–51: Persons of non-Christian faith for entering into a new, or into new, while existing, marriages, when this is contrary to the laws of their faith or special government regulations for mixed marriages between Protestants and Mohammedans, are subject to imprisonment for a period of from eight months to one year and four months with the deprivation of certain ... special rights and benefits.” And we already know that in some non-priestly views this awareness of the sanctity of marriages is precisely what is lacking. Citizen course Law, Part 2, pp. 66, 67. 3rd edition, St. Petersburg, 1889. Whereas according to Roman laws, marital fidelity was obligatory only for the wife. Young women who commit fornication without their father's permission commit fornication. But through reconciliation with parents, this matter seems to have healing. However. They are not immediately admitted to communion, but are prohibited for three years. (St. Vas. Vel. rights. 38). The most ancient church rule in this regard is the following, known under the name of the 11th Apostolic (2nd category): a faithful man, having a slave as a concubine, either remains her, or according to the law, let him marry; If she is free, he will legally take her as his wife; Otherwise, it will erupt.” (Herm. Ch. 2). The same concubinage is meant in Rule 26 of St. Vas. Great. – A remarkable exception in this regard is for the Christian slave: “Slave, the unfaithful master’s concubine will be accepted only with one who copulates; Let him who commits fornication with others be turned away.” (Apostle rights. 10. Helm. ch. 2). The publishers of the helmsmen considered it necessary to provide this rule with the following remark: “this rule 10 talks about foreign-language countries in which slave-captives do this out of captivity.” In reality, these “foreign-speaking countries” are the Greco-Roman Empire, in which concubinage was abolished only in the 8th century, precisely by the Ecloga of Leo the Isaurian. See Feed. Chapter 49, art. 16. Your article about. Paul ended like this: “forgive me, Your Eminence, that I dare to express my opinion, which may be erroneous, which I accept, however, based on the instructions and actions of our archpastors.” Brotherly Word 1886, No. 20. Fraternal Word 1886, No. 20 pp. 712–714. Right 1–e, Helmsman. book Ch. 21 See in the Book of Rules the Epistle of St. Athanasius to Bishop Rufinian; briefly - in the Helmsman ch. 29. You might be interested in: