Старца Поляномерульской обители Василия о ошаянии брашен возбраненных монахом

About the hedgehog for the sake of guilt, having gathered from the Holy Scriptures answers to the resolution of questions about the evil of the brushes forbidden to the monastic free promise We are many who speak, and few who do: but no one should hide the word of God, or alienate it for their negligence, but confess their weakness, and do not hide God’s truth, lest we be guilty of transgressing the Commandments, and interpreting the word of God, says Saint Maximus. But even though I was despondent and indecent, I was honored to read the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, and also the teaching and fatherly books with diligent zeal and undoubted faith, and from those many useful words I learned, but being empty of good deeds, I am convicted by the word of the Lord, even though the doctor was healed; from the other part, the servant who has hidden his talent and is deprived of any answer horrifies me, not as if he himself was idle and idle, but most of all, as if he had not betrayed his word to others, as the Divine Maximus sees about this: for this reason, before I saw it, as if there were no one from my brothers, whom the unworthy one was called a receptionist in the monastic fasting being, walking in other lands, they argue with some, as if it were not a sin, nor a crime of promise, when the monks eat meat; For they say, it is up to everyone to eat meat or not to eat, and not the law and the rule is urgent, like the ancient fathers, Oviya byahu who eats meat, but Ovii, neither, nor on their will this is: the poisonous one, as the Apostle said, let not the one who eats not rebuke, and the one who is not poisonous, let him not condemn the one who eats, and so on; and from such people all the names of ignorance, deprived of all forgiveness, inventively, fall into frivolity about meat-eating: about this, a lot of bewilderment that contained me, brought me to the greatest test, and to God helping, I found a much needed and ancient history in the book of the bureaucracy of the Monk Nikon the Montenegrin. When this holy teacher read the charter of Cyrus Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, who corrected meat-eating as a monk, he could not bear it; but out of divine jealousy, according to this Phinehas, piercing, like a spiritual copy, reproaching with a sword this patriarchal scripture, declaring delusion and inflicting a vice, saying: as if the Patriarch cast down the passionate teaching of a monk, according to his passionate will, and brought the fast of the Great Basil: but about this, speech, it is worthy to remain silent: what can we have now such antiquity, when Is meat-eating among monks to be cut off in every possible way? Then it was in the beginning, but now it is not effective, and so on: what is being discussed later. I asked the Most Blessed Patriarch of Antioch Cyrus Sylvester about this, in the presence of the most radiant person of His Majesty Mr. Konstantin Nikolaevich, Prince of Ugrovlakhia, in 1749. And then His Holiness gave my blessing to speak and write against the monks who teach meat-eating. From here we accept the guilt and the beginning, I am bold, even if I am deprived of all boldness towards God, gather from the Holy Scriptures, and from church teachers, and from the typikons of the great monasteries, which the holy cathedral church accepts and contains: as it is by no means proper for a monk today, looking at antiquity, to eat meat. And not by denouncing or condemning others, this congregation, but by assuring and confirming, I teach my only brethren, leading them away from such trampling of their conscience, and from the fear of the righteous judgment of God and the vengeance that died on the ancient Bishop Elijah, for the sake of his sons Hophni and Finess. Unworthy Elder, Vasily Schimonakh About the monk’s shame and non-acceptance of meat: where did this come from? Since the divine Apostle, the entire Old Law, the shadow of being future and intelligible, as the Most Holy Gregory the Theologian says: therefore these three cities, created from the people of Israel in Egypt, Pitho, Ramessi and He, prefigured for us the three primary passions, the love of voluptuousness of the river, the love of money and vanity; from them the first, like some kind of retribution for their work, the Israelites carried with them from Egypt, for the sake of it, and moreover, inspired by it, they attempted to return to Egypt, as is shown from the second and fourth books of Moses, Exodus and Numbers. The whole host of the children of Israel spoke against Moses and Aaron, saying: “Oh, that we might put away the wounds of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat over the meat pots” (Ex. 16:3)! Also: “And the children of Israel sat down weeping, and said: Who will feed us meat? Now our soul is dried up, like manna before our eyes. And Moses said: Where do I get meat from, give it to all these people? as if they were crying at me, saying: Give us meat, let us eat. And God commanded Moses, and said to them: Cleanse yourself in the morning, and eat the meat, as if you wept before the Lord, saying: Who will feed us the meat? for it will be good for us in Egypt: and the Lord will give you meat to eat, and the bottom will come out of your nostrils: and it will be an abomination to you” (Num. 11: 4, 11, 13, 18, 20). And such a procession of the ancients from Egypt is accepted by the Most God-Seeing Fathers as an image of the procession of monks from the world and renunciation of this; food, or food, created by them from the seeds and fruits of the earth, can contain the image and perfect likeness of manna from heaven: since manna from above was sent from God, and not meat, so the seeds of the earth and the fruits of trees were in the beginning given as food from God himself, and not meat, which the ancients sometimes lusted after, despising the heavenly manna, falling in the desert: “Again, he said, I had meat in their teeth, and the Lord was very angry with the people, and the Lord struck the people with a great plague, and the name of that place was called the graves of lust: for there they buried the people who lusted” (Num. 11:33, 34). Who, as Basil the Great said, fell bones in the desert? Is it not meat-eating that seeks? Because I was completely satisfied with the manna, I conquered the Egyptians, and walked through the sea: but when I remembered the meat and the cauldrons, I did not see the promised land.” From here, gaining the beginning and guilt, to all who stand up for the good tradition of the God-inspired Fathers for the gift of meat to the monastic self-willed promise, we present this one answer in response: for even if I did not partake of meat-eating from the ancient monks, God is equally attentive to their eating, just like the blood sacrifices of the Old Law. “It is clear that from the beginning God did not want to give them such victims, but forbearing their infirmities, seeing them frantic and choking with the desire for sacrifices, allow them,” said the Divine Chrysostom. So is meat-eating: from the beginning, as a monk, it was not only the will of God for this, but also indulgence and timelessness. For this reason, the God-bearing Fathers put it aside until later, about which it will seem sufficient and true below. For this reason, the monastic promise seeks its ancient existence and passionlessness, and not the condescension shown to Noah: for this reason, the food given from God to Adam in paradise, and not to Noevi after the flood, should be given. This is the first evidence of the fear of God, love and reverence of the monk. Question: Where did the monks come from when they decided not to eat meat, which the Divine Apostle Paul clearly resisted? He writes to Timothy, saying: “In the last times some will depart from the faith, heeding spiritual flattery and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of a liar. Burned by their conscience, commanding them to withdraw from the waste, which God has created for the consumption of the faithful and those who know the truth (1 Tim. 4: 1-3)? Answer: Even if there were heretics, called Manichaeans, Egkratiti, Eustathians, Marcianiti, Saturninus and Priscillianiti, who also said that the flesh of all animals, wine and marriage were unclean: otherwise you now have no need to have any doubt about all of them, since by the grace of Christ the Holy Church has been cursing the heretical blasphemy of brashneh, honors abstinence. It is appropriate to pay attention to how the devil, seeing that all his weapons have become exhausted in the end, eats the first of his art and army, with them, having driven out the primordial one from paradise, the condemnation of death came to him. And about this, the Divine Paul, not with ink and a reed, but especially with his tears, wrote to Philippis, saying: many, speaking, walking, with many words to you, now and weeping I say: the enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose belly is God, and the glory in their cold, who are wise on earth, and so on. (Chapter 3, Art. 18, 19). Interpreting this, the Divine Chrysostom says: “Nothing is so exclusive and alien to a Christian, how to seek joy and peace. Your master will be crucified, and you will be satiated. Don’t just carry the cross, but suffer on the cross. Everyone who is a friend to satiety and to this peace is an enemy of the Cross of Christ. For Paul weeps, others laugh about them, and they say, God is in the womb. For this reason, there is God for them, because they say: let us eat and drink. Do you see what evil satiety is? Others are riches, but this belly is God: and glory is in their cold. Is it because of them (the Jews) that this was said so, and did those who exist here escape from this reproach, and is anyone else to blame for this? Is there anyone who gives birth to God, lower than the glory in the cold? I want, and I really want, nothing more than this to be to us: below the one who is guilty of what is said: I am afraid, but not to us any more than then to those who are being spoken. When someone spends his whole life in drinking and eating on his belly, is it not blindness that he says: “Whose God is belly and glory in cold”? Therefore, it is especially fitting for us monks to run after the great boldness and fearlessness of God, about whom the entire Latin and Lutheran family cares little, for better or worse, the scriptures and stories of ancient times are tested, with a sly spirit collecting words and reports on the constant eating of meat: being likened to hornets and wasps, even though they cannot collect honey from the flowers of the village, or from garden and vegetable fruits, they eat carrion from the flesh of beasts, but most truly speaking, like beetles born from bloodworms, they feed on bloodworms. Otherwise, anyone who is disgusted by our disposition must become like bees, who collect honey-bearing words from the Holy Scriptures and the lives of the Holy Fathers, just as bees collect honey from flowers, which can extinguish the lust of a voluptuous spirit, and bring us into obedience to Christ and the tradition of our Holy Fathers, who deny meat-eating to the end as monks. Question: If God allowed the righteous Noah to eat meat after the flood: every kind of animal would be your food, and he would give you everything like herbal potion (Gen. 9:3): then what would be the sin or virtue of a monk who eats or does not eat meat? Answer: Even before the flood, not to eat meat, this law was common to all people, given from God to Adam from the beginning in paradise. “Behold, said God, I have given you every seed-bearing herb that yields seed, and every tree that has the fruit of its seed, as food for you, and for every beast of the earth, and for every bird of the air, and for every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, which has a living soul in itself” (Gen. 1: 29-30). And even after the flood, the eating of meat, this seems to be the permission of God, and the descent into our intemperance, and not the law of God. “After the flood, as Basil the Great said, Noah was allowed by God, and according to it, all people to eat meat, not as necessary for our nature, but as a descent from our weakness. Knowing that the Lord is merciless people, allow all kinds of pleasure. And with such permission, the rest of the animals eat without fear, standing up to each other. It is powerful even now, in imitation of those who exist in paradise of life, to lead those who want to, running from this multi-material food of pleasure, and to direct one’s life towards this life, using the fruits and seeds that exist from the treetops as food. Let us put aside these things that are superfluous, as not necessary: ​​for we do not despise the vile, for the Creator, but for the lower pleasure, for the pleasure of the flesh.” One wonders here how this Divine Hierarch, in the sole sense of his fasting words, allows a monk to soak bread in brine and eat, while a small cut of meat is cooked in it, for the sake of some kind of pleasure: here, writing for the six-day meal, he denies meat-eating, calling it a satisfying food, from only the seeds and fruits of the earth commanding everyone who wants to imitate this heavenly life to eat, just as he himself had bread and water to eat, according to the saying of the Divine Gregory the Theologian. And from here it is understandable that even before the days of this great teacher there was not much meat left from the monks, as if the former had not yet been put aside. When our Reverend Father Anthony the Great, the first desert dweller, renounced meat-eating, as his very life, written down, shows: from then on, this good rule began to spread to all monks about eating meat, like the most voluptuous food, even for the sake of the fall of the ancients, bones in the desert, and not seeing the promised land. Just as manna was called the bread of Angels, as if it came down from heaven: so here is bread, the food of Angels, and not meat, as it is sent to many Saints from above by the Holy Angels to eat. Also, according to the Great Anthony, the Monk Euthymius, according to him the Sanctified Savva, and their names in the monastic fasting, like the determinants and performers of all monastic deanery and promises, are the essence of remembrance. This was the first teacher, according to Bose, of the monk of carving meat. Seeing the ancients sending manna from heaven, in the new grace, to many desert dwellers instead of manna, bread, wine and oil, and not meat, through the Holy Angels, also by heavenly birds, sometimes also by the invisible hand of the Divine, especially and offered from the Life-Giver Christ himself to the four thousand and five thousand people in the desert, bread and fish, and not meat, having learned through this the whole will of God in favor of the law given to Adam in paradise, and the monk renounced meat-eating to the end. About this part and here we need to remember: it is written in the life of St. Paul of Thebes, as if he was sitting with the Great Anthony in conversation, behold, a corvid flew in, carrying whole bread, and, having laid it before them, quietly flew away: and St. Paul spoke to the Great Anthony, behold, now sixty years old, I will accept half of the bread, but yours for the sake of your coming, increase the rent of your servant, Christ the Lord. Similar to this, the Great Onuphrius lamented about himself: having seen, God said, my hunger, he commanded the Holy Angel to take care of me, bringing a little bread every day. From the life of our Venerable Fathers Simeon and John: John brought a certain man into his cell, and behold, an unusual meal was found in the desert, offered by the invisible hand of God: for the bread was clean and warm, and plenty of fish, and good wine. From the life of St. Euthymius: it happened, he said, he came to the monastery of St. Euthymius to four hundred men of worship from Jerusalem, and when the elders saw them, the steward said to the steward: set up this man's nuts: and he answered: I am not imah, father, the cellarer of bread, to satisfy ten people, and where will we take the bread for so many people? Holy One, go, say, and do as I command you. When the steward came to the bread bin, he could not open the doors, for I had filled the blessing of God to the top with bread. Those who were called by several brethren, who opened the door, were showered with bread from the bread bin; Likewise, about wine and such oil, there was a blessing, the vessel was suddenly filled. And this is about the Great Euphemia. Even if there is a great multitude of Divine Fathers, sometimes solitary, sometimes sociable, accepting food sent to them from God, except meat, however, for the sake of brevity, the order of writing does not fit here: one thing is here showing that God is lower than himself, lower through the Holy Angels, or the birds of heaven, when in the new grace he gave his servant meat, except bread and fish, wine and oil, which is also God the Word, but rose from the dead and took communion. With this we all assure that it is not proper for us as a monk, in the eyes of some ancient Fathers, to eat meat now: as God’s testimony for the gift of meat is much greater and more reliable than man’s permission for this, which he assures us about, is in no way sent by his slave to eat meat; Thus, we must more than repent of the good tradition of the Holy Fathers, who deny meat-eating by monks, rather than by some who eat this and allow others to do so. Behold, Christ the Lord himself, honoring the law given to Adam in paradise for food, fed, as he said, four thousand men from seven loaves of bread and small fish; and again five thousand, besides wives and children, from five loaves and two fishes, like the rebellious Jews of old in the desert, to satisfy with meat, from birds of feathers. And he himself, after rising from the grave, showing himself to his disciple, was one of ten, before them he ate fish and from honeycombs, and he ate Simon Peter with the others at the sea of ​​Tiberias, and with them he ate bread and baked fish. Meat does not appear where it eats, and it is not remembered in the Holy Gospel. It is clear that the Gospels remember nothing about meat, fish, bread and honey, showing Christ the Lord, from this nothing else that we believe to be, in accordance with the instructions of our conscience, unless we prefer the law given to Adam in heaven from the beginning about food, which is the image and prescription of the monk, such food is destined, and not meat. All the God-given life and correction on earth of the Lord is an image and mark for us, so that we may follow Him, saying: “If anyone serves me, let him follow me” (John 12:2). Question If there were any virtue or sin in dressing up or eating meats there was a monk, then why wouldn’t the Holy Ecumenical Council ordain whether a monk should eat or not eat meat? With the entire Council silent, how can everyone powerfully know the truth? Answer: This question was filled with great surprise and extreme lack of consideration. If in the ancient law there is another law of God, another tradition of old age, another self-willed promise of every individual person: “For a man, a man, or a wife, who is promised by a strong vow, to purify herself with purity to the Lord, let him abstain from wine and strong drink, and let not drink much of the strong drink, and let the fir tree be made from bunches of wine, Let him not drink, and let him not eat the grapes fresh or dry, all the days of his vow" (Num. 6: 2-3): and again: "Whoever promises a vow to the Lord, or is sworn with an oath, shall not defile his word: all the trees that come forth from his mouth, let him do it" (Num. 30: 3). Why don’t you accept being like this even in the new grace? Whenever you deny the world, and accept with good will all the rules and traditions of monastic life; Isn't this a self-willed promise? Do not think of this, as the Holy Councils, silently for the monk’s dishonor of meat, serve the guilt of contempt of the good traditions of the God-bearing Father to the free promise of the monastic; don’t be: especially because this kind of silence confirms these legends. If only the Holy Councils had known that it was contrary to the Holy Church to have a monk eat meat, then they would have put it aside, and the types: Jerusalem, I say, Studian and Athos about the quality and quantity of meats, would not have been accepted to the Holy Church, by them all of Christianity, the monastics, I say, and the world, are governed hitherto. If you are stumbled by the silence of the Holy Councils, then understand this, because not exactly the Holy Councils do not lay down the law by canons and rebuke to the free promise of a monk, but our Lord Jesus Christ himself, even though in many ways and deeds of God he showed the monastic promise by his life on earth, yet nowhere is he found by rebuke and hell, like its other sacred commandments, laying down the law: but what does it say? “If anyone wants to follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me” (Luke 9:23). And to the young man: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and come after me” (Matthew 19:23). Why should a monk demand laws, and the Holy One lay down something about these laws? Council, when is a self-willed monastic promise according to God itself their law and rule? The firmness of the vows was already legitimized by God in the Old Testament. Question: but is there a word here about the entire monastic promise, except for one piece of meat, which from the days of the apostles, even before the Great Basil, was multiplied by the monks without any shame in eating, but now this happens as a temptation? Answer: Enough has already been said about this, since it was not just the God-bearing Fathers who rejected meat-eating by monks, as well as palatable food, but most of all, the Lord himself was the image and prescription of this: for, showing his displeasure about this, he did not send meat to his servants, but bread and oil, and sometimes fish and wine; The builder himself, after his rise, partook of the same food. And the command offered the multitude of people only bread and fish, and not meat. And as if there were no meat-eating in some place from the ancients, nothing else can be seen except this, as if abstinence from meat was not yet reasoned with: not exactly this, but that monastic order itself has not yet come to its full beauty and perfection. Speech of Saint Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki: “And this is wonderful, and the very same church deanery with all the sacred rites, even until the Seventh Ecumenical Council, accepting in part the pious tradition, receive perfection; and not from the one from the beginning it was like this: but as if it is not powerful for anyone to put anything down piously, or to despise the written and unwritten church tradition, through guilt and knowledge, as the Apostle did not accept everything from the Saints as one: it is not reverent, nor is it pleasing to God, when anyone, through the fault of the first imperfectly provided monastic rule and definition, eats food alien to the monastic image and the promise of meat from the life of the Venerable Alexander, the never-sleeping teacher: “Ravul, the mayor, deigned to speak to the advice of the Venerable Alexander, and, rising in the morning, drank with him many of his household and from his friends, and went into the impassable desert all day, even until one ten o’clock, where he saw a certain villager, while leading the cattle, she was burdened with bread, cleaned and warmed, and other garden and mountain food, and asked: where are you from, and who sent you this? He said: My lord sent me to you, and at that hour I was invisible. Alexander spoke to Rabulus: accept the evil, and do not awaken unbelief, but return it. And again, the venerable one understood that some people had come to him from the citizens, wanting to know where to get food for his multitude of brethren, the poor one, speaking to the men of those brethren: go and bring the man before the gate with warm and clean bread. When my husband came in, he asked him in front of everyone, where did you come from with this bread? He said: I took away the bread from the oven, a certain young man of bright authority commanded me to carry this after him, and brought me to the gates of this monastery, saying to give the bread, but he himself was invisible. And against this, what else do the meat cutters want? Isn’t it clear from here that monastic food is shown, except for meat, sent from God? And to the Great Onuphrius, the existing youth, Christ the Lord, with His own hands, gave clean and warm bread. Just as that Holy Virgin Mother of God herself, loving the monks’ habit of meat, gave visually these three commandments to that blessed Dositheus, saying: fast, do not eat meat, and pray often, and you will be freed from torment. Question: In the primal Church there are many monks who eat meat, have not fasting women appeared, and pleased God, more than those who do not eat in these times? Reply: The Divine Apostle spoke kindly, for “I knew no sin, but the law: but the acceptance of sin by the commandment brought about all lust in me. Because the commandment came, sin lived, and I died” (Rom. 7: 7-10). The same is true for the Lord: “If he had not come and spoken to them, they had no sin” (John 15:22). Women of fasting and abstinence in the primal Church, who do not have the tradition of the quality of the food, have not been guilty of the crime of the good and pious God-bearing Father, Anthony, Euthymius, Savva and other instructions: now the monks, who dare through the tradition of eating meat, will not have to answer before God with the same judgment with the ancients, according to what was said about Israel: for “I still had meat in their teeth, and the Lord smote them with a great plague, and the name of that place was called the graves of lust, for there they buried the people who lusted” (Num. 11: 33, 44). But we who hear this should also be greatly afraid, for having the monastic food prescribed by the Holy Fathers, like the ancient manna from God, we abhor it, drawn by lust for meat in the same way as these, whose bones fell in the desert. We cannot in everything be like the primal Church, in which, for the sake of the infidels, sometimes in the evening and at night the liturgisa of the priest, for those who ate the communion of the most holy mysteries on that day: and until the age of thirty years of age, baptism is delayed, and a deacon is married upon ordination, and the most holy mysteries are placed in the hands of all who receive communion. I teach. Such slaughter and other numerous ancient customs set aside, like the eating of meat by a monk, food for a good hour have those who reverence without distinction of antiquity, accept with meat-eating and such all the sediments? What do we and the ancient Father, who touch meats with such abstinence and renunciation of lust, with greatness, do we now eat, below the tasteless meats, working with the belly, like God, and serving him, and deliberately offering him a sacrifice of voluptuousness and intemperance, and besides meats? If, even without meat, we conceive the gluttony of voluptuousness with bad food, then where do we put our voluptuous disposition and the work of gluttony, when we allow the natural sweetness of meat to our desire to eat? The voluptuousness that is made up of meat is like eating the cave of the Chaldeans, which was consumed by the sevenfold; from simple brashens, what is built and intended will be equal to the ditch of Levsk, in which Daniel was sometimes cast. And how great is this cave for horror and the most terrible for torment, more than lions and this ditch: so much more terrible is gluttony and voluptuousness enslaved by the consumption of meats than that created by simple meat; and how much more inconvenient would it be to approach someone and look into the cave bursting with flames of forty and nine cubits, and to see in it the three youths thrown in, rather than approaching the pit, with the lions and Daniel sitting in it with them: such is the many inconvenience of forgivable insolence, to those who despise the typologies and statutes of the Holy Father, and those who eat meat now, more than those of old, who did not have, will eat of these. Question: Isn’t it true that the ancients ate the same meat as the moderns, and some difference can be found here? Answer: Meat is the same, but intelligence is not the same: for I do not exist in tradition, nor does crime happen; Now, against tradition, and most truly speaking, against the law given from the beginning by God, monks who eat meat are charged with disobedience and self-indulgence before God. Because the ancient Jonadab, the son of Rechavl, gave a prohibition to his entire tribe not to drink wine, and to those who kept this commandment of his, the Prophet Jeremiah said on behalf of the Lord: “Thus says the Lord Almighty: Because the sons of Jonadab have obeyed the commandments of their father, to do as their father commanded them: for this reason says the Lord of hosts: a man shall not fail from sons of Jonadablih, son of Rachabel, stand before me all the days of the earth” (Jer. 35:18, 19). How much more and much more favorable would it be before God, if only we monks had listened to our Holy Fathers, who commanded us not to wine, but to eat meat, as if it were the most palatable food, not to eat our belly all the days! How many in number and most holy were our fathers of blessedness before God, even more than Jonadab; It is only in abundance that we must keep their commandments. Where are those who now wear unhelpful antiquity on their lips, and thus ruin the pious tradition of the Holy Father, which was laid down by the monk about the quality of food? Are not their ancient sons of Jonadab destroying their antiquity with the sole praise of God for their great obedience and keeping the commandment of their fathers, which is not exactly small for many and is considered nothing, but most of all despised by everyone in ancient times and now? The tradition of the God-bearing Fathers of ours, from the very beginning in paradise, was legally established, also by the sacred Gospel, and moreover, by saying, the God-bearing Christ our Lord on earth was testified by the life of God, and was betrayed by the Most Pure Mother of God herself, and besides, it is also assured by the food sent from God to the multitude of Saints, as has already been said about this above: for this reason, it is appropriate to the first law, from God given, have and say this, and not by the tradition of our fathers, later invented: we must preserve this with undoubted faith and a good will from the bottom of our hearts; To those who fight with us about this and question those who established this tradition, answer: for God Himself laid it down in the beginning; Meat-eating was permitted by God for our sole weakness, just as the ancients ate cattle. For this reason, meat-eating by a worldly person, and not by a monk, is lower than sin, lower than virtue, according to the simple principle: it brings neither sin nor salvation to a person; The shame of this, the law is God's saving, and virtue pleasing to God. The first guilt of Holy Lent is the curbing of the flesh, and the taming of any wordless movement, which is extremely necessary for a monk and useful. The second, as if it suits that soul to be comfortable for prayer and heavenly wisdom. Third, because we serve God, and fasting is piety. Fourth, that is, the satisfaction of God, and the propitiation of his righteous anger. Fifth, that is a request from God for eternal and temporary blessings, and so on: as the Divine Chrysostom said: “Fast, so as not to sin; fast because you have sinned; fast and receive; fast, so as not to destroy what you have received.” Also, fasting is divided into four parts: spiritual, I say, fasting, and moral, and natural, and ecclesiastical: in both cases, a monk must always fast from meat-eating. Spiritual fasting is removal from sins; moral fasting is moderate consumption of food; and natural fasting, which is by no means lower than eating, is lower than drinking until a certain time, in the image of the Ninevites; There is church fasting, abstinence from meat according to the law and the rules of the church, and such fasting should be fasted by worldly people at four times of the year, on every Wednesday and Friday, from reverence and on Mondays, equally with monks. However, we are not talking about this fast, but about the monk’s constant dishonor of meats, except for fish, cheese, eggs, and oil, according to the times and location of the types about these. If virginity and self-inflicted poverty, which are above nature, we promise to preserve before God all the days of our life: then how much more should the natural beauty of meat be, according to the legend of St. Father, please. Since our monastic life and promise are nothing other than the dispassion of this paradise, we must choose for this reason the food given in paradise from God. Why did these five virgins swear by the Lord? Is it not for this alone, like virginity, that thing above all virtues, that you corrected; almsgiving, which is the easiest and most convenient for everyone, like a natural virtue, is not acquisitive. According to this image, a monk will be equally violent, the highest and most difficult virtue, virginity, I say, and free poverty will be corrected, but the shame of meat, extremely convenient virtues, will not be preserved. There is light throughout the whole world, and glory to the monks, especially to the Church of Christ, Mount Athos, Kyiv and all of great Russia, where the Holy Fathers, who shone in these last times with such a shrine, who repented of the tradition of the most ancient Holy Fathers, received food from the same seeds, oil and fish, cheese and milk; Moreover, not a single one of them is seen eating meat: their life and abstinence gives zeal to all worldly people for fasting, and brings great surprise at the monastic cutting of meat. The multitude and monks, convicted by their conscience, tremble at an unknown judgment for this. For this reason, it is not appropriate for us to play in things that cannot be played, and straightening out our gluttony with tales and stories of the ancients, daring to cut meat, imagining that this lies in the will of everyone, and not the law of God and our renunciation before God and the Saints of His Angels. Question: If so, as it seems, the destruction of meats is the first law of God, and not just the tradition of the Holy Father, imagined by the typologies, and accepted by the Catholic Church, reaching all Orthodox countries, Greek, I mean, Russian, Bulgarian, and Serbian, Ugrovlahian, and Moldavian and others; then where does this contempt and fearlessness come from in monastics? Answer: There is a beginning and an end in this world, and even more so, the source of much iniquity before God is Old Rome: for from the days of the Apostles it was prophetically called the mother of fornicators and abominations of the earth, as it is written in Revelation. From this, with many evil people, there was a beginning of contempt for pious fatherly traditions for the cutting of meat by a monk. The Most Blessed Patriarch of Constantine, Cyrus Michael Cerularius, writes on the Latin heresy: “if someone from monastic life in the Roman Empire becomes a Bishop, the monk allows them to eat meat without fear, and even if a minor illness happens, he eats meat. In the community, everyone, and being healthy, eats pork fat, a hedgehog and Baronius the Roman admits, writing on the summer of the Lord 1054, in chapter 7: “Michael, speech, Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, all agreed with Leo Acridan, Archbishop of Bulgaria, writing an accusatory letter against the Roman Church, calculative errors of the Latin sice: as they liturgize on unleavened bread, eat strangled meat, monastics eat their meat,” and so on. It’s not wonderful, even if a Greek monk eats meat with Latin training. When the Romans took possession of Jerusalem for eighty years and more, starting from the fate of 1099, even until the fate of 1186, and installed their Patriarch and King in it; Then, many voluptuous Greek monks needed to get rid of meat-eating Latins, especially when that same Constantinople took the Latins. Bo Baronius writes in the summer of 1191: “ever,” said Balsamon, Patriarch. Antioch, he dared to express many blasphemies against the Pope in writing, vile and unworthy, imputing and denouncing, not just memories at the Holy Liturgy, but below the name of the Christian: then, two years at a time, Latina took Constantinople, and imprisoned his Patriarch.” All this was by God's permission, but by the haste and action of Satan, who was resolved by the thousand years of condemnation of him into the abyss, like the speech of a seer, and who showed the sign of his return to Rome, by the retreat of the Latins from the New Roman monarchy, and by the cutting of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the permission the monk for meat-eating, and the worldly for the breaking of holy fasts, preserved by the Holy Church from the days of the Apostles. What did the Great Basil write in one from his fasting words, like the monks boiling a small slaughter of meat in brine, and dipping the bread in that brine, not doing this for lust, but strengthening for the sake of the body, about this the Holy One is not the law of tradition, but declaring the custom of that time, so he wrote. The law from God, given from the beginning, affirming and preferring, commands the monk to eat from the seeds and fruits of the earth, and not from meats, which were allowed by man after the flood for intemperance, as it was said about this. For this reason, having seen that the God-bearing Fathers were not useful to be a thing, but the most lusty eating of meat by a monk, they postponed this until the end, and in opposition to this antiquity, they set out the typologies. From here, looking at all antiquity, it is fitting for us to hold on to the one thing that is integral to our salvation, and not to abandon it to idleness. In the most ancient history about Saint Peter, the Supreme Apostle, it is written: as if “he spoke to Clement: why, without understanding my life and will, do you want to always be with me? Don’t you see how I eat only bread and olives and meager potions? This antiquity is useful for our monastic promise: just as Clement of Alexandria writes about the holy Evangelist Matthew, in the book of the second Pedagogue, in chapter 1, as if “from the same seeds we are fed.” “James the Apostle always abstained from meat,” as Eusebius writes in the second book of history, in chapter 22. What else are we talking about these Christians, who near Alexandria, St. Mark instructs the priest to eat food in the evening, but I always abstain from meat, as Eusebius writes about this in the second book of history, in the seventh chapter? And Saint Epiphanius, in his book on heresy, says that “many times, I have always abstained from meat-eating by my will,” and Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in the catechism in teaching 4, testifies to abstinence from meat, which was the custom of many Christians. Likewise, Augustine, in the book on church customs, in chapters 31 and 33, and Jerome, in book 5 on Jovian, and Theodoret, and many others in their books write about the constant disgrace of Christians from meats. Even if from the beginning there was such care and diligence in the removal of meats in the worldly, how much more befitting is it now to be among monastics? What else do you need to say a lot, exactly the very words of Christ: “Strive, say, to enter through the strait gate; for a wide gate and a wide path lead to destruction, and many are those who enter through it. That you bring a narrow gate and a strait path into the belly, and those who find it eat few” (Matthew 7:13, 14). And since in many places it is remembered here about the types of great monasteries, built by the Holy Fathers, for this reason it is necessary to add this briefly: the studio type about food, setting out the quantity and quality of them, says: “It is necessary to eat, as according to Passover, until the Sunday of All Saints, boiling pits with oil and potion, fish and cheese are also acceptable and eggs, except Monday and Wednesday and heel.” The Typik of Jerusalem writes: “it is worthy to know that all summer on simple days, when there is no holiday or fasting, at the fifth hour we rivet at the Liturgy, and let us go into the meal and two diakonia pits 46, one boiled and the other boiled potion, or juicy, on fast days, reksha, on Monday, Wednesday and the heels of the whole summer, dry pits, according to the legend of the Divine Fathers.” Typical of the Holy Mount Athos, “it is appropriate, in speech, to say that from Easter to all saints, in a meal we eat two deaconies with butter, potion and juice, cheese and fish, even imams.” About the Nativity of Christ: “if the feast of the Nativity of Christ happens to be on Wednesday or Friday, we allow the world to eat meat, the monks for cheese and eggs, and we eat from the Nativity of Christ all the days until the eve of the Holy Epiphany, the world for meat, the monks cheese and eggs.” About the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos: “If this feast is on Wednesday or Friday, we will only allow fish and wine. Also on Monday, the monks are allowed to eat meat, cheese, and eggs, but the monks only have fish and wine.” This is the tradition of the God-bearing and Most Blessed Fathers of ours for the decoration of meats, preserved from the days of the Apostles by the sole will of every reverent monk, in the years of the great Anthony, and Euthymius, Savvas and Theodosius, and other God-bearing Fathers, composed and approved by typologies and writings, and by the Holy Catholic Church accepted, and even to this day has not been erased from church books. Even if the opponents do not dare to blot out I, the unconciliatory army and hatred for this property, mountain and valley are experienced by such words and ancient stories, to the destruction and extermination of these from the midst of the monastic order. Jacob be and their teacher of the law Cyrus Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, in the summer of 1033, about him in the book of the verb taktion it is written to the sitsa: “this then Cyrus Peter shared the sword with each other, Latin wickedness, for unleavened bread and for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, greatly rejecting, but for the sake of meat-eating and for all permission, he accepted and justified them, and for these opposing the Most Blessed Patriarch of Constantine, Cyrus Michael Cerularius.” “And this, from the beginning, even from the various messages of Kur Petrov, I chose, the speech of the Reverend Nikon the Montenegrin, and the ova, as not having much trouble, simply passed by those: that is, meat-eating forbidden by worldly people, even certain cattle and animals are allowed for food, which are the essence of swords, and the like: and the hedgehog is very evil expound to the monastic life the eating of meat with your passionate thought, and the Friars invented the fall, cast down the teaching passionately according to their passionate will, and bring the fasting of the Great Basil and the life of Pachomius, about which it is worthy to remain silent. What does such antiquity have now, when meat-eating among monks was cut off in every possible way? Antiquity and Armene philosophize about this, just as Cyrus Peter wrote about it, being enslaved by passion, just as Cyrus Luke, the Metropolitan of Virza, told me, but he is my Father in spirit. When Cyrus Peter accepted the installation of the Patriarchate, there too was this Father of mine. The king spoke to him, saying that we are giving you the Patriarch; but leaves no meat. The elder dared to say in the middle, that my Lord is good and reasonable, but we in the Antioch of the Patriarch do not accept eating meat. Then Cyrus Peter answered him saying: stop, my lord, do not forbid me from this, for I will not leave meat to eat: and our holy King has given me this. Because the elder did not allow it, Cyrus Peter was completely forbidden from cutting meat. When she left the city of Constantine together, and came to Antioch, the Patriarch was seated on the throne: and the Elite did not eat meat, sat with the Patriarch, and the gray individual was not like that. When I had cooked the meat, I brought it first to the Patriarch, and I smelled it in perfect sweetness, and then I related it to those who eat it. The elder, sitting next to the Patriarch, rebuked him for this, as before the Tsar, and said in the middle: My Lord, do not do this, for you have brought great reproach upon yourself. Then the Patriarch did not say a word, he began to slaughter meat, and said, “Shut up, elder, so that I don’t strangle you with it?” The elder answered: I, my Lord, have had mercy on me in vain, and hoped for this, verbs; Elma, don’t say it, I won’t tell anyone to say it. The Patrarch said: as the holy King commanded me to eat, you forbade me: but now I am not an imam, is the smell of meat alone my consolation. And this is what my spiritual father Luke told me. I was afraid that I would not accept flattery on my soul before I even died, and I set it out in writing about what is good about him. And again, about this Patriarch told me nothing, otaya happened about meats, and from here I knew, like a passionate bahu about the meats of his writing, and about other things of his descent, about blood and strangled meat, hedgehogs and mud have. He writes this to the people of Constantinople, as they are eating blood in the Greek land, and in the city of Constantine itself: and you, as you say, cannot cut off the fact that you say that you can’t eat a flask of a strangled man? Let this be known to all, as he writes with a passionate thought, to the temptation and stumbling of many: just as he writes, as everyone is attracted by desire and is deceived by his own lust (James 1:14). And again, the Lord Himself: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you yourself do not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and you forbid others” (Matt. XXIII, 13): and again about those who accepted the talent and did not teach: “The evil servant, it was fitting for you to give my money as a trader, and when I came, I took what was mine with interest” (Matt. 25, 27). And the Divine Chrysostom, accepting this, says: because it is worthwhile for you to tell and teach, but for me to allow interest to be shown by deeds. The same is true for us who see and hear, what should we say or understand? Even if there is darkness in us, there is darkness in us. And where is the place for the thundering word of the Divine Paul: if, as he said, meat causes my brother to stumble, I will not eat meat forever (1 Cor. 9:13). And do not apply, as Chrysostom said, if a righteous person is tempted, but as either, and I do not say sacrificed to idols, even if for another guilt it was forbidden, but if something in power and what was asked seduces, and this one I will move away from; and not for one day, but throughout my life, I will not eat meat forever. But behold, as it seems, the entire Diocese of Antioch, with all the consecrated ranks of Bishops, and Priests, and monastics, and laymen, deny having a Patriarch who eats meat, and blame this on themselves as a temptation. Moreover, this Cyrus Peter, in no way paid attention to them, but rather said, he despises the very mouth of Christ, the Apostle Paul. His writings are enriched by the Divine Chrysostom’s speech, in moral teaching 21 to Corinth: “Let us hear this, beloved, and let us not despise those who are tempted, nor let us betray our salvation. Do not tell me, if a brother is tempted, as it is not forbidden to eat this: I say to you, as if Christ himself allowed you to eat, but if you see someone being harmed, wait and do not take advantage of the permission.” And again the same in the moral teaching of this epistle 20: “This speech, it’s not just to them, but they also have time to say to us, who are careless about the salvation of our neighbor, who speak in satanic verbs: why should we say, what is zeal for us, if the girl is tempted, and the girl perishes? This is severity and extreme inhumanity.” And this is why the Divine Chrysostom lays down laws about the forgiven things that lie within our will, but which bring harm and temptation to many, by the power and action of the Apostolic Spirit. Meat-eating by the monk below is forgiven, not lying at the will of everyone: but the law of God, and the first order of the flood, according to which Noah was allowed to eat meat, as it was said. For this reason, the God-bearing Fathers postponed and typified the confirmation, not like some kind of new and untested tradition, but the most primary and fused with the existence of the primordial Adam, and especially more favorable to God Himself than meats: and even if this is the truth, as it is; then who can wash away, like mirin, monks from vice and the temptation of the world of eating meat? Where are those now who say and write that the Holy Queen Theophania ordered monks not to eat meat? Isn’t it true that the Roman Baronius stops their mouths, writing on the 1034th Summer of the Lord and says to the verse: “Patriarch Michael Cerularius Latinus blasphemes, because they do not serve on unleavened bread, but also eat strangled meat and all unclean things; Their monks and Episcopi eat meat, and so on. Blessed Queen Theophania lived in the summer of 885, and even if in the days of His Holiness Patriarch Michael the monks did not eat meat, according to the testimony of Baroniev, then how about before one hundred and sixty-nine years, in the days of Leon the Wise Tsar, even though he ate this? Most importantly, Patriarch Cyrus Peter, quarreling with the Antiochians about meat, would not have kept silent if he had called the monk’s dishonor of meat a female tradition (and there are queens of Theophania), and not the Holy Father. But this is not said, knowing that it is known that such eating of meat began from Rome, as all the church teachers write about this, and it was not from Queen Theophania that she was abolished and ceased, but from the wise and holy Fathers of ours, it began to have: most truly speaking, as from the Creator of all God Himself, speaking to Adam and giving the law: “Behold, I have given you all kinds of grass.” the seed that sows the seed, and every tree that has in itself the fruit of the seed that has been replaced, will be your food. (Gen. 1:29). This book was written by the elder, Schemamonk Vasily. Extracted from the Sling, from the Act of the Council, committed against Martin the heretic in Kyiv, from the writings of His Holiness Patriarch of Constantinople Luke Chrysosoverkh to Metropolitan of Kyiv Constantine with all the spiritual rank, where, among other things, he writes to the sitsa: “The Armenians command me to eat meat, and you do not listen to his Armenian teaching: even before and Orthodox Christians ate meat, but after the Holy Fathers the monk renounced meat-eating; Those who eat, you have added to the canon: and you, as a monk, do not allow meat-eating in any way, but command them to abstain from this in every possible way and not eat, as we have received from the Fathers since ancient times, and we have betrayed them to you. In the Lives: Month 21 of July: this is also worthy of remembering, which was announced quickly from God to the Holy Prophet Ezekiel: Ezek. 3:20, 18:20, 21, 22. For even if a righteous person, trusting in his righteous life, dares to commit some sin, and in that sin his death will befall him, and he will die without repentance; then all that was previously righteous and pleasing to God will not be remembered before God, but in the sin in which he dies, he will be condemned: likewise the wicked man, who has spent his whole life in iniquities, even if at his death he repents, and in repentance he suffers death, he who will not be remembered before God by all his former iniquities, but will be committed with the righteous.