О святителе Дионисии Александрийском

Among the saints, our father Dionysius, a disciple of Origen 1, was initially a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church 2, in 232 AD he began teaching the catechumens 3, and later, in 247, he became the bishop of Alexandria. He succeeded Irakles, who had been Archbishop of Alexandria for 13 years 4 . During the persecution of Decius, soldiers captured Dionysius and took him to Taposiris 5, a town located between Alexandria and Canopus, according to Bodran's dictionary. In 257, under the persecutor Valerian, the blessed one appeared before hegemon Aemilian and, having confessed a good confession of faith 6, was expelled to Kefro, a Libyan city in the deep desert 7. Three years later 8, during the reign of Valerian's son, Emperor Gallienus, who at the beginning of his reign seemed to be more lenient towards Christians, Dionysius was summoned from exile back to Alexandria, and this glorious one, having gathered all his forces, sought to convert the heretics, eliminate the church schisms that had occurred at that time due to the Novatians, and reconcile Stephen of Rome with Cyprian of Carthage. There were disagreements between them over whether it was necessary to baptize heretics and schismatics returning to the Church or not 9. Despite the fact that Dionysius himself agreed with Cyprian, who insisted that such people be rebaptized, as Jerome says in the catalog of church writers (see the preface to the rule of the Council of Carthage under Cyprian), he tried to reconcile them. Dionysius fought bravely against Sabellius 10; with his wise conversations he convinced the so-called chiliasts (about whom see the preface to II Ecum.), adherents of Nepos, to abandon their wrong way of thinking 11. In 265 12 he was invited to Antioch for the Council against Paul of Samosata 13, and although he could not go due to old age and poor health, he expressed the Orthodox view of faith in the letter, and also exposed the heresy of Paul of Samosata in ten replies 14. In the same year, which was the 12th year of the reign of Emperor Gallienus, St. Dionysius reposed in the Lord, having served as Archbishop of Alexandria for 17 years 15. Along with his other writings (see: The chain of interpreters on the Octateuch. Vol. 1. P. 14), he wrote the following canonical epistle in 260, as Milias believes (Synodikon. Vol. 2), and sent it to Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolis churches, as Eusebius says (book 7, chapter 26) 16. The Epistle is divided into four rules, which are indirectly confirmed by Rule IV Omni. 1, and directly – VI Omni. 2. Thanks to this confirmation, they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. This message is found in the 2nd volume of the Pandect and in the Synodikon (vol. 1, p. 106) 17. In the saints of our father Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria, confessor 4 rules, into which his canonical letter to Bishop Basilides is divided In your letter to me, my most faithful and wise son, you ask at what hour the Easter fast should end. According to you, some of the brothers believe that this should be done when the roosters crow, while others believe that it should be done at nightfall. The brothers in Rome, as they say, are waiting for the rooster to crow, and about those here you said that they end their fast earlier, but you are trying to establish an exact boundary and a very specific hour, which is difficult and wrong. The fact that after the time of the resurrection of our Lord it is necessary to begin celebration and joy, and before that to humble souls with fasting, is recognized by everyone equally. But in your message to me you proved very sensibly and with the understanding of the divine evangelists that we do not find any exact information about the hour of the resurrection from them. In fact, the evangelists described in different ways those who came to the tomb at different times and said that they all met the Lord already risen. On Saturday evening 18, as Matthew said (Matthew 28:1), early, when it was still dark, as John writes 19, very early, Luke 20, very early, at sunrise, Mark 21. And when He rose again, no one showed it clearly. But the fact that on Saturday evening, at dawn of the first day of the week, before sunrise on the first day of the week, those who came to the tomb discovered that He was no longer in it, is certain, and let us not assume that there are differences between the evangelists or that they contradict each other. But even if it seems that there is a slight disagreement in the issue under investigation (since everyone unanimously recognizes that on this night the light of the world, our Lord, shone, but they speak differently about the hour), we will still try to prudently and correctly reconcile what has been said. Matthew says this: On the evening (ὀψέ) of the Sabbath, at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord, who came down from heaven, came and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb and sat on it; his appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow; Frightened by him, those guarding them trembled and became as if they were dead; The angel, turning his speech to the women, said: Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus crucified; He is not here - He has risen, as He said (Matthew 28:1-6). Some will think that the word ὀψέ (in the evening) is used in the ordinary sense and means “on Saturday evening.” Others, who reason more wisely, will say that this is not evening, but deep night, since ὀψέ means slowness and a long time. And the evangelist showed that we are talking about night and not evening by adding the first day of the week at dawn. They came, not yet carrying aromas, as the other evangelists say, but they came to look at the tomb, and saw that an earthquake had occurred, and an angel was sitting on a stone, and they heard from him: He is not here - He has risen. John says similarly: On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb early, when it was still dark, and sees that the stone has been rolled away from the tomb (John 20:1). But at the same time she approached the coffin when it was still dark. Luke says this: On the Sabbath they remained alone according to the commandment. On the very first day of the week, very early, bringing the prepared aromas, they came to the tomb. But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb (Luke 23:56; 24:1–2). The words very early probably indicate the barely visible light of dawn on the first day of the week, because the whole Saturday had already completely passed along with the night that followed it and a new day was beginning when the women came with incense and peace, so it is clear that the Lord had risen long before that. Mark's words agree with this explanation: They bought spices so that they could go and anoint Him. And very early, on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, at sunrise (Mark 16:1-2). And Mark said very early, which is the same thing as very early. And added at sunrise. In fact, it is clear that the preparations for the journey and the journey of the wives began very early and very early, but they spent time on the road and at the coffin until sunrise. That’s when the young man in white robes told them: He has risen, He is not here. After all that has been said, we offer our opinion (ἀποφαινόμεθα) 22 to those who carefully examine at what hour, at what half hour or quarter of an hour the rejoicing of the resurrection of our Lord from the dead should begin. We condemn those who are too hasty and break the fast even before midnight as careless and intemperate, since they stop the procession when there is little left to the end. After all, according to the saying of the sage, “little things in life are not small.” Those who wait for a later hour, delay as long as possible, abstain until the fourth watch, when the Savior, walking on the sea, appeared to the sailing apostles, we approve of as courageous and hardworking. And for those who stop fasting in the interval between one time and another, according to internal motivation or strength, we do not bother too much with reproaches. After all, probably not everyone keeps the six days of fasting the same way, but some spend all these days without food, others two, others three, others four, and others not a single one. Those who are very tired by the duration of the fast, then exhausted and almost fainting, can be forgiven for quickly tasting food. If others, not only without aggravating the fast, but also without fasting or even living luxuriously for the four previous days, then, having reached the last two days, Friday and Saturday, spend only them in fasting and consider that they are doing something great and glorious, then I do not think that even if they remain in fasting until dawn, they will accomplish an equal feat with those who labored for more days. I wrote this as I think myself, giving advice. Obviously, the divine Basilides asked the question to blessed Dionysius so that he, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, would indicate to him the exact hour at which Christ was resurrected, and the time when one should begin to rejoice at the Resurrection of the Lord and allow fasting, because, as can be seen from this message, Christians had some disagreements on this matter. Some, the Alexandrian Christians, said that the celebration should begin and the fast should end with the onset of evening, while others, the Roman Christians, said with the crowing of the rooster. Therefore, Basilides asked to write to him about the exact hour of Christ’s resurrection, so that everyone would stop fasting together and begin the holiday at a certain hour. Answering this question, Saint Dionysius says that it is difficult and hardly possible to determine with all accuracy the hour of Christ’s resurrection, as Basilides asks. It is necessary to stop fasting, he says, and begin to enjoy the holiday after the resurrection of Christ - this is unanimously recognized by everyone. But at what hour He rose again is difficult to say, because the sacred evangelists themselves described only those who came to the tomb at different times and said that all those who came met the risen Lord, but they did not indicate exactly at what hour He rose. Thus, Matthew says that the women came on Saturday evening, John - early, when it was still dark, Luke - very early, Mark - very early, but not one shows at what hour the Lord rose. The fact that those who came to the tomb after the Sabbath, at dawn on Sunday, did not find the Lord in the tomb, is recognized by all the evangelists, and we should not assume that there is any disagreement between them or that they contradict each other. However, although this question is insignificant, because the divine evangelists speak in agreement about the same Sunday night, on which the Sun of the world, Lord, shone from the tomb, and they speak differently only about the hour of resurrection, but we, says the saint, will clarify this insignificant question, that is, we will find that the divine evangelists speak the same about the hour, if we prudently agree on the divine sayings. Indeed, the majority will consider that the words of sacred Matthew on the evening (ὀψέ) of the Sabbath have the usual meaning and mean “Saturday evening,” while more wise reasoners will say that this means deep night. After all, the adverb ὀψέ in the proper sense of the word means a slowdown and a long delay, that is, “on Saturday evening” is the same as “the time after Saturday” 23, and therefore the evangelist then says: at dawn of the first day of the week. So, the words in the evening in Matthew, when it was still dark in John, very early in Luke and very early in Mark mean the same thing. They show that after the Sabbath and the whole Saturday night, when dawn broke on Sunday, women came with incense, and it is obvious that the Lord was resurrected before they set out on their journey. After all, they began their journey very early, as Mark said, and since they spent some time on the road, they arrived at the tomb at sunrise, which is why the evangelist adds at sunrise. After all that has been said, says the saint, for those who want to find out exactly at what hour of the night, at what half or quarter of an hour they should begin to rejoice in the Resurrection of the Lord and stop fasting, we express our opinion. We condemn those who are in a great hurry and break the fast before midnight as cowardly and insatiable, because they needed to endure the fast a little longer, but they stopped the process of fasting prematurely, while, according to one sage, even the slightest deed done in this life is not small 24 . (After all, if it is good, then it is the cause of great reward, and if it is bad, of great punishment in another life.) Those who, on the contrary, slow down and courageously endure the fast until the fourth watch of the night, in which the Savior, during His earthly life, walked along the sea, heading to his disciples, in other words, those who abstain until dawn of Sunday, we praise as courageous and conscientious. And we don’t give much annoyance to those who broke their fast between midnight and dawn, as far as they had the strength: why didn’t they wait until dawn? After all, not everyone fasts equally for the six days of Holy Week, but some spend all these days without food, others two days, others three, others four, and others do not go even one without food, so those who are more exhausted and almost lose consciousness from fasting can be forgiven for stopping fasting earlier. And about those who not only did not go a single day of Holy Week without food, but did not even fast so as to eat dry food once a day, and, moreover, lived luxuriously for the first four days, and then spent only two days, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, without food, but believe that if they remain in fasting until the dawn of Sunday, then they accomplish some great and glorious feat - I do not think that they suffered equal misery with those who fasted all four days. Read also VI Omni. 89. Regarding women who are in purification (ἐν ἀφέδρῳ), whether it is permissible for them to enter the church of God in such a state, I consider it unnecessary to ask. And they themselves, as I think, being faithful and reverent, in such a state will not dare to approach the holy table or touch the Body and Blood of Christ, just as the wife, who suffered from bleeding for 12 years, for the sake of healing touched not Christ Himself, but only the hem of His robe. There is no shame in praying, no matter what state or position one is in, remembering the Lord and asking Him for help, but let it be forbidden to approach the Holy of Holies if one is not completely pure in soul and body. They asked St. Dionysius and whether it is possible for women undergoing monthly purification 25 to enter the church of God. To this he replied that there is no need to even ask such questions, because women, if they have proper reverence for the Divine, will not allow themselves to do so and will never dare to approach the holy meal and partake of the Lord’s Body and Blood while in a state of monthly purification. At the same time, they can also remember that bleeding woman, who, out of great reverence, did not dare to touch the body of Christ because of the bleeding, but only touched the hem of His garment. However, no woman in such a state is forbidden to pray, no matter where she is (alone in her house or even in the vestibule of a church), calling on God and asking Him for help and salvation. However, approaching the Holy of Holies, in other words, receiving Holy Communion is prohibited to those who are unclean in soul and body, and such are women in their monthly purification. Those who are married should also be sufficient judges for themselves. For they heard from the writings of St. that it is proper to abstain from each other by consent, for a while, in order to practice prayer, and then be together again. Paul (see 1 Cor. 7:5). When asked whether spouses need to abstain from each other, the saint replied that in this matter the spouses themselves should be sufficient judges for themselves, because when they are in prayer, 26 they, according to Blessed Paul, should also abstain from bodily intercourse. Of course, this must be with the consent of both parties, that is, husband and wife, so that one of them is not tempted by the enemy and the abstinence of one does not harm the other. After all, if a husband is overcome by lust, and his wife does not agree to satisfy him, then he can fall with another woman and sin, as Zonara says. Those who have had an involuntary nocturnal discharge should also follow their conscience and examine themselves whether they are in doubt because of this or not, just as it is said about food: he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned (Rom. 14:23). And at the same time, let everyone who approaches God have a good conscience and good boldness according to his own judgment. You asked these questions out of respect for us (you are not ignorant, beloved), disposing us to be like-minded, as we are, and agree with you. And I, not as a teacher, but with all the simplicity, as befits us to talk with each other, stated my opinion for general discussion. Having examined it, you, my most prudent son, write to me whether something else seems fairer and more correct to you, or whether you recognize my opinion as true. I wish you, my beloved son, health and peace to serve the Lord. In this rule, St. Dionysius speaks of an involuntary outflow that occurs in a dream. He teaches that those to whom this happens should be guided by the judgment of their conscience, because if their expiration did not occur as a result of shameful dreams and passionate thoughts, and also not from excess in food and drink, but because the nature ejected the seed on its own, as a natural excess, then they are not forbidden to begin Divine Communion. If the expiration occurred for the indicated reasons, that is, due to daydreaming and passionate thoughts or an excessive amount of food and drink, then they should be prohibited from receiving communion as unclean, not because of the expiration of the semen in itself (because, being natural, it cannot be unclean, like the flesh, the excess of which is the semen), but because of the unclean memory and dreaming that has defiled their mind. Impure memories and dreams deprived them of a good conscience and, therefore, of good boldness. Therefore, how can they approach God and the Mysteries while remaining in doubt and enduring convictions of conscience? 27 For if they approach with doubt, they will be condemned rather than sanctified. In the same way, the one who eats the flesh of animals, considered by the Jews to be nasty and unclean, is condemned if this makes him doubt and hesitate, as the apostle says. Eusebius. Story. Book 6, ch. 29 (PG 20, 589A). Jerome. Catalog of Church Writers. Eusebius, ibid. Ch. 40 (PG 20, 604A). Eusebius. Book 7, ch. 11 (PG 20, 665B). Eusebius. Book 6, ch. 46 (PG 20, 633C); Book 7, ch. 4, 5, 2 and 3 (PG 20, 640B-645B). Eusebius, ibid. Ch. 6 (PG 20, 645B-648A). See note. to II Omni. 1. Eusebius, ibid. Ch. 24 (PG 20, 692C). See note. to I Omni. 19. However, note that the last and more numerous Council against Paul of Samosata was convened under Aurelian, in 272, according to Eusebius (book 7, chapter 29) (PG 20, 708B), as indicated in the same I Om. 19. See these answers in the Synodikon (vol. 1, p. 111). Dositheos in the Twelve Books says that following the example of this letter, all the bishops and patriarchs after Dionysius began to write similar messages to the Councils containing a statement of faith, if, due to poor health, old age or other serious circumstances, they could not come to the Council in person. Eusebius, ibid. Ch. 28 (PG 20, 708B). Basil the Great in the 1st rule calls this divine Dionysius very knowledgeable in the rules. Obviously, St. Dionysius was the first to lay the foundation for the dogma of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ. In the 10th answer to Paul of Samosata, he says: “Jesus, one Word, one Hypostasis and one Person, Himself became for me God and Lord,” and on this foundation the divine Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council approved the great dogma of hypostatic union. We quote these words from the Church Slavonic translation, since in this case this translation corresponds to the further reasoning of St. Dionysius. In other sources, “we answer” (ἀπολογούμεθα). The fact that the word ὀψέ means “then” and is placed instead of the preposition μετά is also evidenced by the expression of Xenophon in his Cyropaedia: ὀψέ τοῦ πολέμου instead of μετὰ τὸν πόλεμον (after the war). This saying - “a little in life is not a little” - is quoted literally by Basil the Great at the beginning of the 2nd word about baptism, saying that one of our sages said this (Basil. Magn. De baptismo 2.1 // PG 31, 1525D-1528A.). But who is this sage? We do not know (See: Sayings of Sextus, 10 / trans. introductory article and commentary by A. S. Nebolsin. M., 2007. P. 90.). This is precisely what is meant by the expression ἐν ἀφέδρῳ, which, according to Zonara’s interpretation, arose due to the fact that Jewish women, when the time of their monthly bleeding came, sat alone and at a distance from the places (ἀπὸ τὰς ἔδρας) where the rest sat until seven or more days had passed. If a woman has an issue of blood flowing from her body, then she must sit for seven days during her purification (ἐν τῇ ἀφέδρῳ αὐτῆς); and whoever touches it will be unclean until the evening (Lev.15:19). And again: If a woman bleeds for many days not during her purification (τῆς ἀφέδρου), or if she has an outflow longer than her usual cleansing, then during the entire time of the outflow of her uncleanness, just as during the continuation of her cleansing (τῆς ἀφέδρου) she is unclean ( Lev.15:25). Why is monthly bleeding and a woman in this state called unclean by God? After all, it seems that this trend, since it is natural and allowed by God after the crime of our ancestors, is neither sin nor uncleanness. “Truly, this is not sin and not uncleanness,” according to Chrysostom (Chain of Interpreters. Vol. 1. P. 1059) (See also: Ioan. Chrysost. De bapt. Christi 2 // PG 49, 366.), and “everything that happens by nature is truly not unclean,” according to Theodoret (Ibid. P. 1057) ( Theod. Cyr. in Lev. 20 // PG 80, 325A.). “There is nothing unclean except an evil disposition,” as Theodore or Diodorus says (Ibid. p. 1032). Therefore, in the “Apostolic Constitutions” it is said: “Neither legal copulation, nor childbirth, nor the flow of blood, nor the flow of semen in a dream can defile a person’s nature or separate him from the Holy Spirit, but only wickedness and a lawless act” (book 6, chapter 27) (PG 1, 980B.). But if this is the case, why then not only the old law, but also the rules of the holy fathers consider a woman unclean in her monthly purification? We answer this question with the words of the same fathers: the flow of menstrual blood is called unclean, firstly, because of human perception. All of us, people, usually abhor everything that is naturally expelled from the body through some organs as unnecessary or superfluous, and consider it unclean and vile, for example, earwax, eye pus, nasal discharge, phlegm when coughing, urine and feces, as well as the menstrual blood of women. Secondly, monthly bleeding is called unclean because “God teaches moral things through the body and through the first teaches how hard the second is,” according to Theodoret (Chain of Interpreters. Vol. 1. P. 1057) (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 20 // PG 80, 324D-325A.). After all, “if the involuntary defiles, then all the more aggravates the voluntary” (Ibid. P. 1062) (Idem. Quaest. in Lev. 21 // PG 80, 325C.), i.e. if the natural, which happens without the will of man, is unclean, then all the more unclean are the sins that a person commits of his own free will. Thirdly, God calls the monthly purification of women unclean in order to prohibit men from intercourse with them (and this is truly the only and main reason) during the monthly purification, according to Theodoret (Ibid. P. 1062) (Ibid.), - as “for the sake of the abstinence of husbands and respect for women,” according to Isidore (Ibid. P. 1058) (Isid. Pel. Ep. II, 81 // PG 78, 521D.), and because of shame before the law of nature, according to Philo, and mainly and primarily for the sake of caring for offspring, children. After all, babies who are conceived and formed from such rotting, worthless and defiled menstrual blood are by nature very weak and susceptible to many different diseases, especially leprosy, with which they are born into the world, as Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 21 // PG 80, 325C.), Isidore (Isid. Pel. Ep. II, 81 // PG 78, 524A.) and Diodorus (Chain of Interpreters. T. 1. P. 1031, 1058, 1062). It is for this reason that both the woman in monthly purification and the man who copulates with her are called unclean, according to Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 21 // PG 80, 325C.), and it was decided to expel lepers from the cities and prohibit them from all communication with people, according to Isidore (Isid. Pel. Ep. II, 81 // PG 78, 524B.), - in order, under the threat of uncleanness, leprosy and expulsion to which the children will be exposed, to prevent parents from copulating at inappropriate times. Therefore, the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 6, chapter 28) define the same thing: “When wives have natural purification, husbands should not come together with them, caring for the health of future offspring” (PG 1, 985A.). God, demanding even more, commands that men who had sexual intercourse with their wives while they were undergoing their monthly purification should be exterminated and put to death. If a man lies with his wife during the sickness of purging blood, and uncovers her nakedness, then he has exposed her discharge, and she has revealed the flow of her blood: let both of them be cut off from among their people. (Lev.20:18). Therefore, through the prophet. In Ezekiel, God says that the sign of a righteous man is that he does not have intercourse with his wife during her monthly purification: And he does not approach his wife during her purification (Ezekiel 18:6). So, God, wanting for all these reasons not only to instill reverence and fear in women, but also, much more, to tame the uncontrollable aspirations of men, both before and now, through His saints, forbids women to enter the church in such a state and partake of the Divine Sacraments, as this rule of the Divine Father also decrees. Likewise, the rule of Timothy 7 forbids them to receive communion until they are cleansed. And his 6th rule also prohibits baptizing them before cleansing. In accordance with the sacred rules, the 17th novel of Leo the Wise determines that both women in labor and women undergoing monthly purification, if they are not baptized, should not receive baptism, and those who are baptized should not receive communion until they are cleansed, unless they fall into a fatal illness. Since some refer to ch. 27, 28 and 30. 6th book. “Apostolic Constitutions”, which says that the rituals regarding the eruption of semen and the flow of semen in a dream, natural purification, etc. are only Jewish rituals (PG 1, 980A-985A, 988B-992B.), and also give other similar examples that contradict the above rules, then we answer them like this. Firstly, the divine apostles themselves explained why they said this: women believed that during the days of monthly cleansing they were deprived of the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, and therefore did not want to pray, read or listen to the divine Bible. To eradicate this prejudice, the apostles said what is stated in these chapters. “Indeed, if you, wife, think that during the seven days of monthly cleansing you do not have the Holy Spirit in you, it follows that if you suddenly die, you will depart without the Holy Spirit and without boldness and hope in God” (Const. Ar. VI, 27 // PG 1, 980 AV.). And again: “So, if you, wife, during the days of monthly cleansing, do not have the Holy Spirit in you, as you say, then you must be filled with an unclean spirit. After all, when you don’t pray and don’t read the Bible, you involuntarily call him to you” (Ibid. Ch. 27) (Ibid. // PG 1, 981A.). “Therefore, wife, refrain from vain speech, and always remember God, who created you, and pray to Him” - etc. (Ibid.) Please note that the divine apostles allow women in uncleanness only to pray and remember God, which is repeated verbatim in the present rule of Dionysius, but do not allow them to receive communion or enter the church. And what is written in the margins of the manuscripts (“to partake of the Eucharist”) has no power or has very little power, since these words are not in the original text of the “Resolutions”. Secondly, we give to the mentioned people this true and most correct answer: we have an indispensable duty - to be obedient and follow the rules with obedience without reasoning, and not to become judges and investigators of the commands of the Holy Spirit, asking why this way and why that way, so that we do not suffer the heaviest punishments that are imposed on those who break the rules. And let the last convincing word in everything said go to Basil the Great: and he, in his ascetic words (see rule 309 from the summary) forbids women who are unclean to receive communion. He forbids both men and women to receive communion in the same way, having the “usual and natural” flow of semen in a dream for men and monthly purification for women. And then he says this: “I knew that this was established by the grace of Christ for both husbands and wives through their sincere faith in the Lord” (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (brev.) 309 // PG 31, 1303A.). John the Faster defines the same in his rule (See his 17th rule), citing as evidence the present rule of Dionysius, the rule of Timothy 7 and the Old Law. Above, I said that it is not appropriate for women in uncleanness to enter the church itself, while they are allowed to enter the vestibule of the church (the vestibule, or pre-church), according to Balsamon. Besides all that has been said, this is the rule of St. Dionysius is also confirmed by Peter, deacon and chartophylax of the Great Church. In the 18th answer, he says that if a woman was going to get married, but the “usual” thing happened to her, then she should neither get married nor receive communion until she is cleansed (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 1002). And the rank of deaconesses was abolished due to the impurity of monthly purifications (see about this in the note to I Ecumenical 19). The following bewilderment may arise: since the apostle says: “Pray without ceasing and constantly” (See 1 Thess. 5:17), and spouses need to abstain from intercourse during prayer, according to the same apostle. Paul and the prescription of this rule, then they must always abstain from each other and never enter into communication? However, this perplexity is most satisfactorily resolved by two canons of Timothy of Alexandria, 5th and 13th, which say that by times of prayer the apostle means liturgical meetings and liturgy. At that time, they were performed mainly on Saturdays and Sundays, and on these days abstinence was required from the spouses in order to partake of the Divine Mysteries. This means that any reasonable listener understands that this rule of Dionysius directly answers the question of Basilides about whether spouses should abstain from each other when they intend to take communion. It answers that in this matter the spouses themselves are sufficient judges for themselves, that is, they can judge that they need to abstain before communion, although Zonara and Balsamon, I don’t know why, interpreted this rule differently. These interpreters believe that we are talking about the most diligent prayer, which should be accompanied by sorrow and tears. Note: as the apostle adds, in addition to the time of prayer, spouses must abstain from each other and during the fasts established by the Church (see about this in the 3rd note to Apostle 69). Rule of Timothy Alexander. 12 explains this rule in more detail. It explains what is the conviction of the conscience of a person who has had a discharge in a dream. If his conscience convicts him that the flow occurred due to lust for a woman, that is, passionate thoughts and dreams, then he should not partake, but if his conscience tells him that this happened due to the devil’s influence, then he should receive communion. However, the most reliable thing is not to take communion, because it is difficult for a person to judge when the expiration occurs only due to envy and the influence of demons, without any reason on his part. After all, the outflow occurs from an immoderate amount of food, or drinking, or sleep, and from negligence, rest, and from relaxation of the body, and from exaltation, condemnation and slander, and from bodily weakness, and from the evil habit of fornication, and from fatigue and drinking cold water. Often, nocturnal discharge also occurs because a person is afraid to be subjected to it, as Simeon the New Theologian says (see also the 8th answer of Anastasia Sinaita (Anast. Sinait. Respons. 8 // PG 89, 389D-396B.) and “Philokalia”, p. 906 (Greg. Sin. Capita alia. 6 // PG 150, 1301D-1304B.)). Therefore, John the Faster, by the 6th rule, forbids someone defiled in a dream to receive communion for one day. John of Kitras and Balsamon in the 9th answer also forbid the laity to receive communion for one day, and the priests to celebrate the liturgy if they have had an expiration; and only if this prohibition for any reason may turn out to be dangerous, is a layman allowed to receive communion, and a priest to celebrate the liturgy. The same is said by Simeon of Thessalonica in the 14th and 15th answers (PG 155, 864D-868A.), in Lavsaik (the story of Dioscorus) (Pallad. Hist. Laus. 68 // PG 34, 1172B.) and by the great Barsanuphius among the fathers (In fact, St. Barsanuphius gives the opposite advice is to approach communion with humility. See question 94.). But above all and above all stands Basil the Great, the precise writer of the Spirit, who says: to whom the “ordinary” has happened (see rule 309 of the briefly stated) (PG 31, 1303A.) and who is not clean from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit should not receive communion (question 3 about baptism) (Basil. Magn. De baptismo. 2. 3 // PG 31, 1584D-1585A.). Meanwhile, the outflow that occurs due to lust and dreams is defilement of both the soul and the body, and what happens without dreams or sensations is also defilement, but only of the body; and perhaps there is not a person who, after any expiration, would not be convicted by his conscience that he is defiled, due to that primary perception that is deeply rooted in the human imagination. Some sensible people consider that the small sweet moisture of semen that a person feels in the reproductive organ from a passionate memory, or a passionate look, or a word from a loved one, is desecration of the flesh. Those who receive communion must also be free from such desecration. I cannot pass over in silence the greatest trick that the devil resorts to in order to defile us with a passionate outflow. The wise Neil talks about her in one of his letters. He says that the vile devil, in order to defile an unfortunate person with a passionate outflow, makes such a great effort that he is not satisfied if a person endures this in a dream, but, having aroused passion in a person by the presentation of any persons, especially those for whom we are partial, and having prepared the nature for sin, the damned one immediately awakens the person so that when he wakes up, he more clearly feels the unclean pleasure and I remembered it better (Nil. Ep. III, 43 // PG 79, 409C.). From this let everyone understand how precious the treasure of virginity is and how jealous the devil is of it, trying to steal it from us. Let's take heed to ourselves!