When you come to a country, it's not bad to know what the people of the country believe or don't believe. What churches, chapels and shrines do they go to or never go to. This will help, firstly, to better understand this country and, secondly, not to get into a stupid position. After all, religion, although modern world and does not look like Byzantium during the Ecumenical Councils, remains one of the most important, focusing realities. It is known that all attempts the greatest philosophers to prove the existence or non-existence of God ended in nothing. Accordingly, it is impossible to talk about religious life in an adequate form. I, remembering Prutkov, will not try to embrace the immensity and, in the highest degree modestly, I will try to talk about the beliefs of the inhabitants of some countries of Western Europe. Rather, touch their surface layers.
Ireland
I'll start with the westernmost of them, Ireland. Everyone knows that Eire is inhabited mainly by zealous Catholics. This is one of the oldest Christian countries: its baptism took place in the 5th century. The Coptic monks, that is, the Egyptians, sailed to the island in leather boats, their leader, St. Patrick, first destroyed with his staff all the snakes crawling on the green Irish grass (in Ireland, in fact, there are almost no snakes), and then christened the natives. But the fertile word of the Gospel fell into the fertile soil of Celtic fantasy, druidic rituals and mysticism inherent in the inhabitants of this mysterious country.
The result was that Catholicism in Eyre was as whimsical as the ornaments of ancient Irish churches and sinuously sensuous as the national character of the Irish. The patron of the country, St. Patrick, and other locally venerated saints, turned out to be like the Seeds, the ancient spirits that live in the hills and grow the silver apples of Avalon; on "Banshee" - foggy spirits of the earth; to other strange audience from another reality.
The Irish are incredibly superstitious, they still practice "geys" - individual prohibitions - for example, some Sheamus OH-Reilly will by no means step on a crack in the pavement: he knows that this threatens with imminent disaster. Irish women are still sent to be treated for infertility to primitive menhirs, vertical phallic stones with crosses carved on them, much later. They, however, until recently went to have abortions in Britain. For Catholic reasons, the event was banned in the Republic of Eire.
In addition, Ireland is a maritime country, and sailors and fishermen have always and everywhere been prone to superstition. Dipping a statue of the Mother of God into the sea on a rope, throwing stone crosses into the water and then taking them out of there, riding a priest in full vestments down a hill to stop the rain (in Russia, priests were rolled like a log across the field so that it would rain).
But it is important that, while adhering to pagan survivals, the Irish rarely deviate into other religions and denominations. Even the same Sheamus O "Reilly, who visited the church for the last time 10 years ago and swears obscenely at dominance religious traditions, after the second pint of port wine, he will say: "what can I do, I'm a Catholic ..."
Great Britain
Great Britain in a religious sense, the country is absolutely amazing. Let's start with the fact that the Anglican Church appeared because the Vatican did not allow King Henry VIII to marry for the sixth time (two of the five previous wives were executed). The king, who had previously been a faithful Catholic - so much so that he even took the title "Defensor Fidei" - "defender of the faith" - was offended, proclaimed himself the head of the church in Britain and interrupted communion with the Holy See. In addition, he did not forget to rob the monasteries and those of the subjects who did not agree with his initiative. This happened in 1534, so Anglicanism has a fairly long history.
This denomination is a cross between Catholicism and Protestantism; Anglicans retain the veneration of saints and icons, allow monasticism and have a rigid church hierarchy. At the same time, the "Church of England" is very democratic - as it should be for a public organization in a country with the oldest "ruler of the people" - and is divided into two parts. "High Church", close to the upper class of society, is similar in style to Catholicism. The "low church" intended for the "people" does not differ much in its rites from the Protestant denominations. But these are not sects, but simply a reflection of class British society, where by pronunciation they immediately know not only what part of the country you came from, but also what school you graduated from.
It is even more interesting that the British monarch, crossing the border between England and Scotland (for example, simply going on vacation to a Scottish mountain castle), ceases to be the head of the "Church of England" and becomes the head of the "Church of Scotland", belonging to the Presbyterian offshoot of Protestantism and theologically hostile to Anglicanism.
To top it off, the monarch of the United Kingdom is the only one of the august persons of Europe who has the competence of miracles. Once a year, the queen lays hands on those with scrofula - allergies - and is believed to cure them. And near the ruins of the royal castle in York stands a wild rose bush growing from a branch brought by St. Joseph of Arimathea in the year of the Crucifixion of the Lord. He plucked it from the bush, from the branches of which the crown of thorns was made ...
The British believe that the crown of thorns is an allegorical concept, but in reality the crown was made of branches of wild rose). But, despite such wonderful customs and legends, Anglicanism is primarily a social phenomenon - an "English club", membership in which cements society. An Englishman (if he is not a Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, pagan, Catholic or Orthodox) is completely indifferent to what outsiders think of his faith. It is important for him that once a year he comes to church, and then drinks a glass of sherry with the priest. And passes this habit to his grandson.
France
About the French, Pope Paul VI, the greatest reformer of Catholicism, said back in the 60s that they should be baptized again. The average Frenchman treats religion like a tie. The thing is not very functional, but it should be "comme il faut". Cursing, he goes to church for a baptism, wedding or memorial service, grumbling because the knot is pressing, or because the neighbor has a better tie; returning home, carefully hangs the thing in the closet until the next occasion.
The French are rational people and, realizing that the St. Bartholomew's Night, the introduction of the "Cult of Reason" by the Jacobins and the confiscation of church money at the end of the 19th century did not give much sense, they decided to engage in affairs closer than the "Gate of the Lord". Of course, there are devout Catholics; there are also fundamentalist Catholics, similar to our tough Orthodox ones, prone to extreme rationalism, considering rock and roll a diabolical temptation, and condoms a direct insult to the Virgin Mary and at the same time demanding to sing mass again not in mutually intelligible French, but in Latin. But they are few. On the other hand, there are many who, being sincere children of French rationalism, cannot bear the burden of it.
Not everyone knows that such stars of French culture as Captain Cousteau and choreographer Maurice Béjart are Muslims. One of my acquaintances, a natural Protestant from the Vendée, a specialist in Turkish Sufi music, converted to Orthodoxy, married a Tajik woman and got married to her (without first christening her - where did the father look?) - in St. Alexander's Cathedral on Rue Daru in Paris. This is not uncommon, the French, tired of what used to be called "Voltairianism", are looking for the truth everywhere, and not always successfully.
One of the most profitable occupations for immigrants from the Maghreb, Black Africa and Haiti is fooling the neurotic natives of the Hexagon with all sorts of "gri-gris", dried lizards, beating a shamanic drum and poking needles into a wax doll of a supposed enemy. The Celtic lining of the modern French psyche also plays a role. But if for the Irish superstition and magical habits are as natural as an evening pint of beer, then among the French - "I think, therefore I exist" - they often acquire socially dangerous features. A Frenchman, on second thought, could easily begin to exist as a member of a savage sect like the "Knights of the Sun" or commit "ritual murder".
France is the champion of Europe in terms of stories of this kind. But a healthy average Frenchman, I repeat, treats any metaphysics like a tie, tries to remember that his friend Joseph should not be treated to pork, because he is either an Arab or a Jew, and is thinking about how he could sign up for the Freemasons: parts of blat and social security are much more convenient than the union.
Germany
The Germans, having suffered from religious wars, Hegelian dialectics, "concordat" - "cordial agreement" - between the Vatican and the Nazis, came to the conclusion that faith is both personal and public. In Germany, no one, unless you have become the closest of friends, will ever ask you what chapel you go to.
Approximately sixty percent of Christians in Germany are Protestants, mostly Lutherans, and forty percent are Catholics. The former live throughout the country, while the Catholics are concentrated mainly in the Rhine regions and in Bavaria. Both confessions enjoy equal rights, both Catholic and Protestant holidays are declared days off.
The most interesting thing is that in Germany, secular state, there is a state tax on the church. It is considered voluntary, but in order to refuse to pay it, you must officially declare your atheism and unwillingness to support religious institutions. Rarely does this: it takes some social courage to go against tradition, which is taken very seriously in Germany. And in general, what will the neighbor Herr Schmid say if he finds out that I am not acting like everyone else?
In general, religion in Germany has a very calm, domestic character. Not without reason, from time immemorial, "Three Ks" were considered the basis of life: "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" - "Children, kitchen, church." Catholics, of course, are slightly more mystical than Protestants, and Protestants prefer to check everything with reason. But usually religious life represents a Sunday trip with the whole family to church and participation in all kinds of charitable events.
Italy
Italy is a country where Catholicism has a completely organic, folk look. It is difficult to imagine an Italian non-Catholic. Even if he is a communist, a declarative atheist, he will still, on occasion, quickly cross himself, conditionally falling on one knee, and whisper a prayer, absorbed with mother's milk. Italian Catholicism is very diverse. It has both gloomy customs and strictness - a woman in shorts or a miniskirt will not be allowed into such "tourist" places as Milan Cathedral or St. Peter's Cathedral. (You can enter Notre Dame de Paris in almost a bathing suit). But there are also noisy, colorful semi-pagan processions and carnivals, reminiscent of those times when Christianity was not yet born.
In the church, the Italian feels at home, he can chat with neighbors during Mass, flirt, kneeling and bowing his head at the right time. Stories have already become notorious about how the Italians, hoping for the help of some saint, but not having waited for it in the expected amount, take offense at the saint, put his statuette in a dark corner, otherwise they can be carved. Then, however, they apologize, and everything continues as before. A priest can easily be mocked, and the guardian of the throne himself can be scolded "Papa e porco", but in the depths of their souls, clerics are respected and feared. Besides, what is permissible for an Italian is unacceptable for a foreigner. If a visitor allows himself to scold the pope or admits obvious disrespect for the church, this will be perceived badly.
We must also take into account the fact that the south and north of the country are very different from each other. Piedmont and Lombardy are different from Campania or Sicily, as, say, the Moscow region is from North Caucasus. Given that in the south of Italy, traditions and superstitions are much stronger, and the church is in fact inseparable from everyday life.
Spain
In Spain, Catholicism is painted in more severe, if not gloomy, tones. The Spaniard will never allow himself familiarity with saints or priests. Religion for him is a very serious and even dangerous matter. Faith is intertwined with pre-Christian, often obscure vestiges. In Spanish Catholicism, the motives of "vanity of vanities", pessimism, expectation of the end are very strong - and at the same time it is saturated with eroticism. No wonder the bullfighters are always very religious people, and their game brings together death, the cult of masculinity and sexuality.
Until now, in remote villages, the church is a place of acquaintance between young men and girls, and the lace black mantilla, which is still worn until the wedding night, recalls virginal humility. Spain was one of the last in Europe to separate the state from the church, and the Inquisition was finally abolished there only in the middle of the 19th century.
In the 50s of our century, it was accidentally discovered that several villages were inhabited by "marans", that is, baptized Jews, who from the 15th century continued to secretly practice Judaism. They simply did not believe that nothing threatened them anymore ... By the way, some of the country's most aristocratic families come from "Marans", and the question arises: is the Marquis such and such, from whose family several cardinals came from, is also a secret Jew ?
Europe is the region that has stepped furthest into the post-industrial world. At the same time, religion remains one of the most important components of public life. And in Europe, with its well-established mechanisms of democracy and a high general standard of living hitherto unheard of in history, religious wars continue - in Ireland, not to mention Yugoslavia. The most inconceivable sects breed. One of the most important world centers of Tibetan Buddhism is located in Dodoni, France, while the Qadiriyya and Ahmadiyya Sufi brotherhoods are firmly rooted in Germany.
There are also amazing cases. Not so long ago, a scandal erupted in France over the so-called "Islamic headscarves". Several girls from Arab families started going to school wearing white headscarves. The church in France is separated from the state, it was a public school, and any propaganda of any religion is prohibited in it. Because of these handkerchiefs, proceedings began at the government level. In the end, it was decided that they were propaganda of religion, and the girls were forbidden to appear in this form in the classroom. Smart people asked the question: why not forbid Jewish boys to wear skullcaps, and Christian children to remove crosses from their necks? In the Netherlands, one Catholic priest managed to marry a couple of homosexuals in a church, for which he was defrocked. I am entirely for the rights of sexual minorities, but in the wedding ceremony there are words about procreation ...
The sacrament of repentance requires a special, creative attitude on the part of the pastor. The service of this sacrament leaves most of it outside the obligatory rite, since the course of confession depends on the state of the penitent in each specific case and the personal approach of the confessor to him. To help both the penitent and the confessor, there are now many manuals that deal in detail with cases of specific sins and passions. But, unfortunately, this undoubtedly important part of repentance sometimes pushes into the background an equally important obligatory part of the rank. This is especially true of the Creed. At best, when analyzing the order of the sacrament, it is mentioned in passing that "...according to the Charter, it is necessary to read the Symbol of Faith ...".
However, these requirements for the confession of the Orthodox faith are far from a formal procedure, which is clear from the very meaning of the sacrament. Being captured by passions and sins, a person thereby departs from the Church and from God, and the penitent comes to confession not just in order to receive forgiveness, but in order to return to the Church, to rejoin the Orthodox Church. Christian faith from which he dropped out. In the last concluding prayer of the Sacrament, the priest intercedes before God for the repentant sinner: "... reconcile and unite him to the Holy Church in Christ Jesus..." It is not for nothing that the Church has always understood the Sacrament of repentance as a "second baptism", renewal of faith, return to the path of truth. How, not knowing the elementary truths of your faith, can you return to this path?
Back in the 70s and 80s, experienced confessors were not uncommon who began confession with the question “What do you believe?”, which corresponds to the order of the Sacrament of Penance:
“First of all, he asks him about faith ... And if he believes Orthodoxally and unquestioningly, let him honor the Creed ...”
However, in modern pastoral practice, this part of the Sacrament of Penance, which, as we see, is the first condition for the return of a sinner to the Church, is almost completely forgotten and neglected. Relatively speaking, "psychology" takes precedence over dogmatics.
It is completely incomprehensible why in our time, when, it would seem, there is a lot of literature, catechesis courses, regular pastoral conversations, everything that facilitates the knowledge of the fundamentals of dogma, it was at this time that the requirements for knowing one's faith were so relaxed. Perhaps, it is assumed that the one who came to confession has already “read” a lot of things and “knows” a lot. However, it turns out that this is far from being the case. Especially if you do not confine yourself to a formal test of knowledge of the Creed by heart, but try to find out how clear its meaning is. Moreover, it is quite possible that someone who cannot accurately retell the Symbol by heart can convey its meaning somewhat approximately. Although, we note, practice shows that, nevertheless, most often, who understands the meaning, probably knows it by heart.
I want to warn you in advance that a shepherd who decides on such an experience needs to prepare for discoveries. The discovery of the abyss of dogmatic illiteracy of the parishioners. Precisely parishioners, and not “goers”, that is, not newcomers or those who entered the church on occasion or occasion, but those parishioners whom we call “churched”, who regularly attend services for more than one year, hear a sermon in the church and constantly participate in the Sacraments Churches. And so, as it turns out, many of these people discover such, for example, “knowledge”:
“Some have no concept of the Trinity, to the point of what it is or who it is. The worst thing is that they heard this word (“such a holiday”), but “somehow they didn’t think about it.” Why didn't you think? Why does the question of the most important thing not even pop up in the mind for years? Even just these questions are a separate big topic.
At the same time, among those who have no idea about the Trinity, there are often those who answer: “I don’t know what the Trinity is, but I have a prayer to the Trinity.” This paradoxical moment characterizes not only dogmatic illiteracy, but says, among other things, that prayer can be understood not as a dialogue with God, but as a sacred set of words, a kind of mantra that is uttered either out of duty or “in order to to help."
- for some, the Trinity is “Jesus Christ and ... I don’t remember” or, for example, “Jesus Christ, Mother of God and the Holy Spirit."
- some argue that “before the birth of Christ there was no Trinity, because there was no Jesus Christ” or that the Trinity “appeared as a result of the evolution of the ever-existing universe” (clearly an echo of a deeply rooted Soviet years atheistic outlook).
In general, rarely anyone who knows the Creed by heart can adequately explain the meaning of the words “born before all ages”, although it is gratifying to note that there are still such; moreover, often from those simple parishioners from whom you would not expect. Some manage in the words "before all the ages" even to hear something like " first person” (quite common). Understanding the existence of Jesus Christ, as having the property of finiteness (“originated” or “created”), can somehow coexist peacefully with a fairly firm certainty that He is God and the Son of God. And this, in particular, speaks of a completely pagan idea of the Deity and the properties of the Deity. It must also be added that with the same understanding of the finiteness of being, almost no one said, at least without a hint, about Jesus Christ as a Man, and even more so as a God-man - and this is the key to understanding the meaning of the Coming of the Savior and the starting point of all our hopes.
It is easy to assume that the term "consubstantial" is also a very tough nut to crack. But, fortunately, it is more often simply not understood than falsely reinterpreted.
Strangely enough, there are fewer openly gross and false ideas about the Holy Spirit, although it is quite common to hear that the Holy Spirit "appeared" on the day of Pentecost.
Thus, triadology and Christology in private mental constructions exactly repeats the whole church history delusions in these key questions of dogma.
What is striking in all this is not so much illiteracy as such (which could be attributed to "natural" ignorance), but the lack of interest, the desire to comprehend the meaning. Having memorized - often only in singing form - the Creed, many keep it in their memory as a mysterious mantra, not understanding and not delving into even an approximate textual understanding of some phraseological turns, and not just the meaning.
It is clear that a whole range of measures is needed to radically correct this situation. There is a need for systematic catechesis of parishioners in a variety of forms - from cycles of sermons and teachings during divine services to special courses or regular conversations outside of divine services. It should be noted that although in modern preaching the moral aspect significantly prevails over the dogmatic one, it cannot be said that the dogma is not discussed at all. Perhaps there is no need to quantitatively increase the dogmatic preaching - in the perception of such information there are rather narrow limits to perception. But it is important that such sermons have a definite plan. Maybe, for example, the goal is to eradicate at first some one common misconception. Then somehow logically you can move on to the next one.
Especially great attention should also be given to explaining the importance of a correct knowledge of the foundations of the Orthodox faith for the practical work of saving the soul. Until a person understands that dogma is the foundation for the formation of the corresponding Orthodox faith vector of preferences and actions, that it gives meaning to what used to seem an incomprehensible set of taboos and rules, that through the correct dogma the true image of God is revealed to us, and from this our living, personal attitude towards Him follows, dogmatic truths will remain for him what -something imposed by dry "theory" and binding. This aspect is especially important in our time, when a “new religiosity”, one of the characteristic features which is a principled and sometimes even aggressive adogmatism.
But the very first and simple thing that can be done right now is what we started with - to return the need to confess faith in the Sacrament of Penance. This alone will to a large extent set one on the perception of the dogmatic truths of faith as a necessary link in Salvation. Confession can be made a powerful tool for the personal catechesis of parishioners; it is possible to literally reach everyone. At the same time, it is important to arrange this matter in such a way that it does not look like an exam, namely, as the individual help of the pastor, his attention to what and as a member of the Church of Christ, a person knows and thinks about matters of faith. With sufficient delicacy, such a conversation will in no way scare the parishioners. On the contrary, in a certain sense, it can even inspire – after all, it turns out that it is important not only what you think about your personal life, your sins and passions, but also about the whole Church, the whole world order. From you personally, something depends in this world. You are a warrior of Christ, and therefore you are initiated into the strategy of fighting evil and the triumph of God's truth. At the same time, it is necessary to link together the two links of confession - to show how dogmatic literacy helps in the fight against the sins with which you came to confession, how it opens up to us the vision of God's plan for the Salvation of our personal and entire fallen world.
Thus, gradually, through painstaking individual pastoral work, much can be done that would seem impossible without significant reforms.
Tsarva
No related posts.
As you can guess, Jung's discoveries were not personally born in his head overnight, in finished form. These conjectures and thoughts have been collected for centuries in the minds of various natural philosophers, especially in the "pool" of German thought (as our philosopher Petrov would say). And only Jung gave himself the trouble (such was his mission!) to take and collect some guesses of German eccentrics together and with this - to get a unique, interesting "product".
Reading many German thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries, I now and then mark with a pencil: here is “great-Jung” and here is “great-Jung”! And even in Goethe, whom you certainly don’t perceive in the context of Jung, now and then there are whole pre-Jungian passages!
For example, it was Goethe who "scribbled"(and forgot - generously giving the descendants to develop their guess) image of Anima and Animus:"female" and "male" halves - male and female Souls.
But Goethe, by the way, placed this observation of his in one very interesting context, a background that we cannot pass by.
He guessed about the existence of Anima and Animus, observing how various Christians he met professed Christianity.
Goethe writes with irony:
“I saw with my own eyes how one and the same faith is modified in accordance with the way of thinking various people. Each person professes his own religion and honors the Lord God in his own way..
Goethe does not reason "in general". He brings his thought to a clear binary idea about - the difference in the confession of Christianity among "religious men" and among "religious women".
What kind of observation did Goethe tell us? ABOUT! Very sad!
In order to easily understand his sad thought, we need to know about the difference between such concepts as "soul" and "spirit"
"Soul" is what psychology and psychotherapy deal with. Valerian. She also deals with the soul. The soul is the space described and analyzed by Jung. Its boundary with the body is the nerves. There is always a mess going on.
The soul is emotions, feelings, dreams, moods, impulses...
In general, the soul is a "bird" of not the highest flight...
Much higher than the soul is the Spirit.
The spirit is calmer than the soul. Spirit is a nobler metal. It is as if “cleansed” (like gold on fire from impurities) from passions and hysterical ups and downs. If the spirit takes off, it is not on the fountain of hysteria, which falls just as quickly. Something like this...
And what is sadness?
And the sadness is that, ideally, Christianity is the Message and Word of Christ, they should not deal with the human soul and appeal to it.
They directly have to deal with the human Spirit. This is His level, His, if you like, diplomatic status.
When the ambassador of Canada came to you, they did not let the watchman come to him for negotiations. Even if she works at the embassy, the wonderful woman read Bulgakov. Even then.
But, unfortunately... Unfortunately, everything is not so simple. In earthly life, a person is commanded not only by ... the soul, but even, let's say, completely - the body! Belly and penis. That is, a person is most often an ordinary animal. “What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is the Spirit.” (Gospel of John). The soul has nothing to do with it. She is the mediator between body and spirit. Not a director! Secretary...
But if in some person, in our era, the Soul suddenly wakes up, (!) And he suddenly begins to sincerely want to live not by the aspirations of one of his understandable and simple flesh, which can be consoled in a shopping and entertainment center, but by the aspirations of some kind of Soul , for which give the Hermitage, the library and the Philharmonic, then they applaud him, like a child who went to the potty, and not to the sliders.
And so. It is some who "applaud" him. And they are a minority! And the majority begins to hunt for such a person - like Herod the King, demanding that he either physically “saw himself out”, or died of hunger, or became “like everyone else” and began to live back - by the demands of one flesh, like cattle in a stall.
It is clear that a person who lives by the demands of the soul feels like a hero, a martyr and a dissident against the backdrop of cattle. (Cattle is Polish for domesticated cattle).
Yes, it is, in fact, what it is ... especially in the most difficult, barbarian times ... A hero, a martyr and a dissident.
Where can we start talking about the fact that the soul is a “bird of not the highest flight”, that it is harmful to indulge it purely (otherwise you will get drunk or end up in a psychiatric hospital) and that you need to strive (at least strive!) to hear everything in your symphony - still party sober spirit and try to understand" But how is it in general - when the Spirit »?..
And "when the Spirit", that's how it is. These are no tantrums. Wherein:
a person does not live by the demands of the flesh (the eating man in the street also has no tantrums, but this is “not right”)
and does not pretend to be “a balanced, gloomy saint in white homespun mantles” (this is already completely “not that” - this is Satan in the mask of a Pharisee, a sadist and inquisitor, rotten from inside with pride).
It is difficult for us to understand how it is to live by the demands of the Spirit. We would have to learn to live (sincerely!) - by the requests of the Soul.
That is why Christianity in this world almost always has a very sad role. In almost every embassy (where he is still accepted!) he is received by an employee who is not equal to him in diplomatic protocol.
He is met by an "intelligent and thin" woman watchman who hastily painted her lips and read Pikul and Bulgakov. Our soul.
So what comes out of this dialogue? But nothing special ... More precisely, about what exactly turns out - we have a speech in the article! (And Goethe just guessed this!)
To move on to the next part of our conversation, we must again recall the geography of the soul, that is, the archetypes Anima and Animus.
"Soulful" people and their Christianity
A person who “lives with the soul” cannot but be excited. But how? He always feels "lack" (as Propp would say).
Or - " languor”, “romantic yearning for the unattainable, the unknown”, “ zainzuht', as Schelling would say.
And Jung said the same thing "in a third way", but it became much clearer. He taught us that all this yearning and lack is simply the Anima's yearning for the Animus and vice versa. (We will not now even briefly state these school truths).
This longing has such a material expression. Women strive for an unknown male ideal, and men - for the Feminine.
Remember our symbolists. Eternally Feminine, Beautiful Lady, Sophia, Snow Mask and so on...
Women also invent for themselves knights in sparkling armor.
And everything would be fine here. This is how the world is created art culture and love story. What's bad about this? Fine!
But this is good until such a “soulful” person adapts for his needs ... religion christianity .
Goethe guessed and directly (almost) wrote (and we will say in modern words according to Jung) that “mystically” (mentally) minded women canalize their fantasies about the Animus into the worship of the Lord God or specifically the image of Christ.
And the same men (with a preponderance of nerves, soul over body) canalize their fantasies about Anime - in the discourse of stormy worship of the Mother of God.
This is especially noticeable in the example of Catholicism, since it was based in Latin (southern) countries, and southern blood is not northern...
Hence the stigmatization of hysterics, and the declaration of oneself as the "Brides of Christ" and the male cult of the Virgin in Spain, a rather strange cult and many have long and greatly embarrassed ...
Of course, our A.S. Pushkin read Goethe, so his famous poem "There Lived a Poor Knight" was obviously written after reading Goethe's observations about "hysterical faith".
“There lived a poor knight in the world,
Silent and simple
Looks gloomy and pale,
Bold and direct in spirit.
He had one vision
inconceivable mind,
And deeply impressed
It hit him in the heart.
Traveling to Geneva
On the road to the cross
He saw Mary the Virgin,
Mother of the Lord Christ.
Since that time burning soul,
He did not look at women
And to the grave with no one
I didn't want to say a word.
Ever since the steel grating
He did not lift from his face
And a rosary around your neck
Tied instead of a scarf.
There is no prayer to the Father, nor to the Son,
Never the Holy Spirit
Paladin did not happen
He was a strange man.
We read about this almost verbatim in Goethe:
"Men with sensitive heart (synonym - souls - E.A.) turn to the Mother of God and Her, - to the highest embodiment of feminine beauty and virtue, they dedicate their lives and their talents like Sannazaro ... only occasionally amusing themselves with Her divine Infant.
(Sannazzaro Jacopo (1456 - 1530) Italian poet, author of the novel "Arcadia", as well as the Latin poem about the Virgin Mary, on which he worked for 40 years).
Is it a Christian faith? Well, not at all! Is that why Freud threw his famous scornful remark: "Religion is a neurosis."
Such - yes.
So what? Ah... nothing! Neurotic people are people too. Therefore, Pushkin ends his poem in a Christian way:
Returning to your distant castle,
He lived strictly imprisoned,
All in love, all sad,
He died without communion;
While he died
The evil spirit has arrived,
The soul of a knight was going
Bes to drag already to its limit:
He did not pray to God
He did not know de post,
Not by de dragged
He is for the Mother of Christ.
But the most pure heart
Interceded for him
And let into the Kingdom of Vechno
His paladin.
It's embarrassing and dangerous. When such a faith will not be realized by anyone as imperfect, but will be sincerely considered aerobatics.
And when they begin to teach it to those who are already able to perceive Christianity not by the soul, but by the Spirit.
Are there any? Yes, I have. Goethe describes a rare person, his contemporary - Lavater.
There are people like Lavater, and they don't live in a "lack" or "Romantic Longing" plot. They are calm. Their soul does not feel like a torn half, desperately trying to find Wholeness.
And such people are capable look towards Christ, hear His Word. Able to profess Christianity. Receive an ambassador at the diplomatic level required by protocol, not as it turns out.
How do they do it? And here is how, we read Goethe:
“Lavater saw his Savior as a friend. Friend, with whom they enter into a selfless and loving competition, whose merits are valued, glorified, and therefore they yearn to imitate him, moreover, to become like him.
Some believing women, reading this, now feel something like indignation. Is not it? Sounds like blasphemy, doesn't it?
"How? Our God, like some kind of friend? What do you allow yourself? On knees! What kind of friend is he to you?
And indeed. Now we have heard the opinion of "soulful" women channeling their longing for the Animus - in the Lord God and Jesus Christ.
This is why men and women often cannot agree on faith. The wife drags her husband to church, but he resists. What do you want? After all, he instinctively feels that such a woman perceives God as her ideal lover, beloved, and naturally “jealousy boils in a peasant” ...
Well, what husband will go to visit the home of his wife's lover? Moreover, in order to listen to teachings from him there, how should he live? ..
Silly. Here is what Goethe writes about female version"hysterical" ("spiritual") Christianity:
“And Fraulein treated her God as ... a lover who is betrayed without hesitation. All aspirations of joys, all hopes are placed only on him and without hesitation and reflection entrust him with their fate.
We have to admit that almost all of us (with rare and pleasant exceptions) are at a spiritual (low) level of perception of Christianity. Not God, but some saint or archangel. Not a lover, so "the perfect daddy of a capricious daughter." It's not a very big difference.
Therefore, if a wife really wants to “church” her husband, she must not make the same mistake - not impose on him “her lover” - God. Or your "daddy" in ideals ... But to approach the soul of a husband in a different way, showing him - the Mother of God. Thus the yearning soul of a man-man will find his Anima...
And there, as they say, we will see.
Do a little test with yourself, dear readers who consider themselves Christians.
Dear women! When you pray, to whom do you pray sincerely: God, a saint, an angel, Jesus Christ, or the Mother of God?
I'll tell about myself. Once again I came across Goethe, I checked myself and found out with horror that ...
All mine really sincere prayers are for God. I actually only talk to Him and talk in the context of prayer or internal dialogue.
But what about the Mother of God? And I read prayers to Her ... like mantras. With a very important look and sometimes even entering into a "floating" (here it is - a typical "spiritual" life. It is very dangerous to get carried away with such delights, this is called "charm").
Yes, I can still aesthetically enjoy - visual, icon-painting Her images created by artists. All.
Here they are, two typical signs of a purely spiritual (and not spiritual) being in Christianity.
Admiration for images (art, painting, icon painting). And savoring prayers like meditative verses, enjoyment of sound and music the text of the prayer - well, perhaps.
In my case, we are not talking about the spiritual level of faith yet. One can only state: "My soul is looking for the Animus." Nothing unusual. Everything, like everyone else.
I just want to ask one question: “How much can you?” But that's a topic for another discussion...
The same test can be carried out by believing male Christians. To whom do you pray when it’s really bad or, on the contrary, good, the soul sings? Just be honest! Mother of God? Or is it the male image of a deity? Holy? Archangel? Jesus Christ?
In fact, we can all be like Lavater and men - especially. Still, “spiritual” life is more feminine practices. A man can live ratio - the highest organ of a mortal human BODY.
So at least he does not fall into the trap of "hysteria", "charm", which can easily be mistaken for "true faith", worthy of imitation and admiration.
To finally clarify my point, I will tell funny joke which probably everyone knows.
An elderly couple returns from the doctor and says to their friends: “Wow, what a discovery! It turns out that what we took for 30 years of marriage as an orgasm is an asthma attack.
It's great that Goethe was able to explain to me personally - why one should not deceive oneself on the path of gaining faith and what traps there are.
I also understood the partial correctness of Freud, who saw religion as a “neurosis”. (It is a pity that he did not see anything else there).
But most importantly, I found best words, which can serve as a compass for checking the route for both women and men who consider themselves Christians. Those who want to be a Christian, but do not want to be a clown, who is rightly condemned from all sides.
Women should learn to see in God - well, at least an older brother or a supervisor, and not a "perfect superhero."
Men should stop being jealous of women for "their" God and see in Him also - a brother and leader, and not a rival in the wife's boudoir or father-in-law.
Those who consider themselves Christians ... And let's “to see in the Savior - a friend with whom they enter into selfless and loving competition, whose merits are valued, glorified and therefore long to imitate him, moreover, to become like him”.
Maybe this is the same musical part of the Spirit?
What do you believe? Or answer prot. Andrei Tkachev, “one of the strongest theologians of our time” according to the RNL, to his speech of March 3, 2016. The answer to this question determines the content of the faith that a person professes. After all, everyone believes in something: someone in God, someone in themselves, someone in general moral values ... When a person confesses himself to be a believer not just in anything or in whom, but in a particular incarnate Living God Jesus Christ important, it becomes extremely important to know how he believes. Right or wrong, true or false? In Orthodoxy, there is a kind of test for the correctness of faith. It consists of two ancient words: “What do you believe?” It would be nice to go through it, at least from time to time, to everyone who calls himself a Christian. Not just sing in the temple or read fluently on morning prayer Creed, and not hurrying to delve into the depth of the universal wisdom contained in each of its members.
Today, in a difficult time of change and substitution, with particular clarity, each of us needs to confess the correct faith in the Body of Christ, we need to clearly and unconditionally determine the loyalty of our long-suffering Mother - the Orthodox Church. So I ask myself this question: what kind of faith do you have?
I believe in One Holy Cathedral and Apostolic Church! It is She, the One Holy and Apostolic Church, who possesses all the fullness of spiritual power, both in earthly life and in Heaven. And the highest form of ecclesiastical authority on earth is catholicity. Any usurpation of the supreme ecclesiastical authority by any one person, be it a patriarch or a head of state, is subject to the conciliar condemnation of the Church. No religious tradition, even calling itself Christian, if it does not recognize the dogma of catholicity and unity of the Church of Christ, is not the Church in the Christian sense! There cannot be two or more churches. There is only one and only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which, as the Body of Christ, belongs all the fullness of Truth. This is how I believe and this is how I confess.
Our Church is a Church that truly glorifies the One God in Three Persons. True means right, true. Therefore, our Church is the Church of children faithful to Christ the Savior, called by Him to become children of the Living God. Our Church is the Orthodox Church. Therefore, our faith is the Orthodox Faith, handed down to us by the Holy Orthodox Church from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God, through the Holy Apostles and all the Saints, who collectively testified to the basic doctrinal truths, called dogmas.
According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church dogma is a conceptual icon of God, which should be revered, and which is called to raise thought to the Prototype. Any deviation from the dogmas of the Holy Orthodox Church is apostasy, leading to eternal perdition. Any apostasy is a betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Orthodox Church, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, who testified to the truth of the Savior's sacrifice on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead by the descent to the Cathedral of the Apostles and the Most Pure Mother of God on the Fiftieth Day of the Resurrection of Christ. It was by this testimony of the Holy Spirit, the True and Life-Giving Lord, and His descent upon the Holy Church believing the Word of God, that Her God-inspired property was revealed and blessed – catholicity. But what do we hear from those who are called to defend the Orthodox faith, who have been entrusted with the grace of protecting it from lies and pernicious distortions?
“Question from the audience: Were you dissuaded from the meeting? Answer of Patriarch Kirill: Nobody tried to dissuade me, because nobody knew.Five people knew about this meeting. I will not name their holy names". This is not about some ordinary meeting, the circumstances of which are not intended for a wide range of people. It is nothing more and nothing less than a meeting of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church in his existing rank, entrusted to him on behalf of the entire Orthodox people of Russia, with the world leader of one of the leading religious traditions - Roman Catholicism. And at the same time - "five people"?! I do not believe that such a "catholicity" exists! This is not catholicity, but the usurpation of church power by a group of persons headed by the patriarch, to whom no one, on behalf of the church fullness, has delegated such powers and entrusted such meetings!
I do not believe the words of Patriarch Kirill about the two churches - the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, which "in the person of their Primates met to synchronize the clock." No, and there cannot be two or more Churches! I believe in the One and only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - in the Orthodox Church.
I do not believe the words of Patriarch Kirill about consensus on a global scale! I believe the word of the Savior about the impossibility of peace and harmony (“consensus”) on earth (“on a global scale”): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, for I came to divide a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies are his household."(Matthew 10:34-36).
I do not believe the words of Patriarch Kirill about some “moral feeling” common to all mankind. I believe the word of the Savior, who exposed the morality of the old man, who hates his enemies and loves his neighbors, and called to new morality, different from the morality of the rest of mankind: “You heard what was said: love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”(Matthew 5:43-45).
I do not believe the call of Patriarch Kirill to participate in the construction " common global civilization”, where there will be no place for terrorism and wars “on the basis of a common moral consensus”. I believe the words of the Apostle Paul: "For when they say, 'Peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them, just as childbirth [comes upon] a woman who is pregnant, and they will not escape"(1 Thess. 5:3).
I do not believe the sly words of the World Russian People's Council that “effective counteraction to genocide and humiliation of believers, protection traditional family and the right to life of the unborn children on a global scale will be possible if international coalition involving all Christians ready to actively express their civic position and resist social evil. Take part in it should not only Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, but also representatives of Protestant denominations, all people of good will» . I believe Tertullian - "a heretic is not a Christian."
I do not believe the words of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk who thinks “that if some of our believers believe that the division between Christians is the norm, that it should be preserved and deepened, that we should use all our strength to ensure that no rapprochement ever occurs, then it is unlikely that they should be reassured. They won't calm down. In order to understand the fallacy of such a position, it is enough to read the Gospel of John, chapter 17, which tells how Jesus Christ prayed for the unity of his disciples. "Let them be one as we are one", - so He spoke, addressing His Father ".
However, we know that the Lord prayed for the unity of his disciples in Truth, and not for unity with the rest of the world, lying in lies and loving "More than darkness than light"(John 3:19). That gospel chapter, to which the crafty metropolitan refers, denounces him: “I pray for them: I don't pray for the whole world but those whom You have given Me, because they are Yours.”(John 17:9). I believe the word of the Savior: “So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me:"God! Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord! God! Have we not prophesied in Your name? and did they not cast out demons in your name? and did not many miracles work in your name? And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity"(Matthew 7:20-23).
I do not believe the sly words of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, who imposed a "moratorium on the use of the term heresy in relation to Catholicism, in order to find new ways of coexistence and new methods of interaction". But I believe in the Holy Fathers II Ecumenical Council: “Those who join Orthodoxy and those who are saved from heretics are acceptable, according to the following rank and custom ... when they give manuscripts and curse every heresy who does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes” (Canon 7). And again I believe Tertullian, who, following the Apostle Paul (Titus 3:10-11), rejects the benefits of arguing with heretics, which, in his opinion, "will only lead to damage to the stomach or brain."
I do not believe the crafty words of Patriarch Kirill, with which he himself exposes his craftiness: “Well, first of all, we didn’t discuss any theological question. Whether this is good or bad is another matter. We didn't discuss. But in theological part of the declaration there is a very important statement…”. Not a single theological issue was discussed, but there is a theological part! How amazing is this? After all, according to the chairman of the DECR, Met. Hilarion, “theological issues were not discussed at all at this meeting,” and the patriarch about the same, but the theological part of the declaration is still there. Absurdity amazing in its frankness! I believe in the words of Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage: “The Lord says: Az and the Father are one.”(John 10:30), and again it is written about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “and these three are one”(1 John 5:7). Who thinks that this unity, based on the immutability of the Divine and united with the heavenly sacraments, can be broken in the Church and fragmented by the disagreement of opposing desires? This unity of the Church, woven in the image of Persons Holy Trinity, can not be broken! Never by anyone, be he the Patriarch of Moscow or the Pope of Rome!
I believe in the words of the Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage: “God is one, and Christ is one, His Church is one, and faith is one, and one people, united in the unity of the body by the union of harmony.” I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as it is understood Holy Orthodoxy. Amen.
Irm. Raphael (Mishin)
Video interview Patr. Cyril (07:40-07:53): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZnIXcuoGw
"The two most big churches in the world, in the person of their Primates, met to synchronize their watches…”. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4377044.html
"How can you achieve some kind of consensus on a global scale?". There.
“There is only one way – it is necessary to use the moral sense of a person as a basis for such a consensus. But the moral feeling, the moral nature, is implanted by God in the human soul. And what for you, an American, what for me, a Russian, are the same moral concepts. If we come to Papua New Guinea, we will see that there, in the depths of the human soul, there are the same moral concepts.” There.
“... We need to agree on these common moral values and on the basis of this consensus to build a common global civilization. In such a civilization there will be no place for terrorism, and if someone tries to use people to harm others, then it will be very difficult to do this, because these calls will go against the general understanding of good and evil. Together we must try to build a new civilization, global, on the basis of a common moral consensus. I believe it's possible." There.
World Russian People's Council: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4379937.html
Tertullian Quintus Septimius Florrent. On the prescription (against) heretics. S. 114.
Metropolitan Hilarion: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4384755.html
“I will return to the question of on what grounds and why Orthodox Church entered into dialogue with the Catholic. First of all, this was done in order to find new ways of coexistence and new methods of interaction. At the same time, entering into a dialogue, the Orthodox Church refused to use the term "heresy" in relation to Catholicism. This does not mean at all that the term "heresy" itself has been removed from the agenda, or that the disagreements that exist between Orthodox and Catholics have been removed. This means that the Orthodox have imposed a moratorium on the use of this term for the duration of the work of the theological commission for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.” Metropolitan Hilarion: https://mospat.ru/ru/2010/11/15/news30385/
Tertullian Quintus Septimius Florrent. Decree op. S. 114.
Patr. Cyril (03:30 – 03:40): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZnIXcuoGw
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4373254.html
Cyprian of Carthage, holy martyr. The book about the unity of the Church // Fathers and teachers of the Church of the III century: Anthology. T. 2. S. 297–298.
The sacrament of repentance requires a special, creative attitude on the part of the pastor. The service of this sacrament leaves most of it outside the obligatory rite, since the course of confession depends on the state of the penitent in each specific case and the personal approach of the confessor to him. To help both the penitent and the confessor, there are now many manuals that deal in detail with cases of specific sins and passions. But, unfortunately, this undoubtedly important part of repentance sometimes pushes into the background an equally important obligatory part of the rank. This is especially true of the Creed. At best, when analyzing the order of the sacrament, it is mentioned in passing that "...according to the Charter, it is necessary to read the Symbol of Faith ...".
However, these requirements for the confession of the Orthodox faith are far from a formal procedure, which is clear from the very meaning of the sacrament. Being captured by passions and sins, a person thereby departs from the Church and from God, and the penitent comes to confession not just in order to receive forgiveness, but in order to return to the Church, rejoin the Orthodox Christian faith, from which he fell away. . In the last concluding prayer of the Sacrament, the priest intercedes before God for the repentant sinner: "... reconcile and unite him to the Holy Church in Christ Jesus..." It is not for nothing that the Church has always understood the Sacrament of repentance as a "second baptism", renewal of faith, return to the path of truth. How, not knowing the elementary truths of your faith, can you return to this path?
Back in the 70s and 80s, experienced confessors were not uncommon who began confession with the question "What do you believe?", which corresponds to the order of the Sacrament of Penance:
“First of all, he asks him about faith ... And if he believes Orthodoxally and unquestioningly, let him honor the Creed ...”
However, in modern pastoral practice, this part of the Sacrament of Penance, which, as we see, is the first condition for the return of a sinner to the Church, is almost completely forgotten and neglected. Relatively speaking, "psychology" takes precedence over dogmatics.
It is completely incomprehensible why in our time, when, it would seem, there is a lot of literature, catechesis courses, regular pastoral conversations, everything that facilitates the knowledge of the fundamentals of dogma, it was at this time that the requirements for knowing one's faith were so relaxed. Perhaps, it is assumed that the one who came to confession has already “read” a lot of things and “knows” a lot. However, it turns out that this is far from being the case. Especially if you do not confine yourself to a formal test of knowledge of the Creed by heart, but try to find out how clear its meaning is. Moreover, it is quite possible that someone who cannot accurately retell the Symbol by heart can convey its meaning somewhat approximately. Although, we note, practice shows that, nevertheless, most often, who understands the meaning, probably knows it by heart.
I want to warn you in advance that a shepherd who decides to have such an experience needs to prepare for discoveries. The discovery of the abyss of dogmatic illiteracy of the parishioners. Precisely parishioners, and not “goers”, that is, not newcomers or those who entered the church on occasion or occasion, but those parishioners whom we call “churched”, who regularly attend services for more than one year, hear a sermon in the church and constantly participate in the Sacraments Churches. And so, as it turns out, many of these people discover such, for example, "knowledge":
Some have no concept of the Trinity, to the point of what it is or who it is. The worst thing is that they heard this word (“such a holiday”), but “somehow they didn’t think about it.” Why didn't you think? Why does the question of the most important thing not even pop up in the mind for years? Even just these questions are a separate big topic.
At the same time, among those who have no idea about the Trinity, there are often those who answer: “I don’t know what the Trinity is, but I have a prayer to the Trinity.” This paradoxical moment characterizes not only dogmatic illiteracy, but says, among other things, that prayer can be understood not as a dialogue with God, but as a sacred set of words, a kind of mantra that is uttered either out of duty or “in order to to help."
For some, the Trinity is "Jesus Christ and ... I don't remember" or, for example, "Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and the Holy Spirit."
Some argue that “before the birth of Christ there was no Trinity, because there was no Jesus Christ yet” or that the Trinity “appeared as a result of the evolution of the ever-existing universe” (obviously an echo of the atheistic worldview deeply rooted in the Soviet years).
In general, rarely anyone who knows the Creed by heart can adequately explain the meaning of the words "born before all ages", although it is gratifying to note that there are nonetheless; moreover, often from those simple parishioners from whom you would not expect. Some even manage to hear something like “first man” in the words “before all the ages” (quite common). Understanding the existence of Jesus Christ, as having the property of finitude (“originated” or “created”), can somehow coexist peacefully with a fairly firm certainty that He is God and the Son of God. And this, in particular, speaks of a completely pagan idea of the Deity and the properties of the Deity. It should also be added that with the same understanding of the finiteness of being, almost no one said, at least without a hint, about Jesus Christ as a Man, and even more so as a God-Man - and this is the key to understanding the meaning of the Coming of the Savior and the starting point of all our hopes.
It is easy to assume that the term "consubstantial" is also a very tough nut to crack. But, fortunately, it is more often simply not understood than falsely reinterpreted.
Strangely enough, there are fewer openly gross and false ideas about the Holy Spirit, although it is quite common to hear that the Holy Spirit "appeared" on the day of Pentecost.
Thus, triadology and Christology in private mental constructions exactly repeat the entire church history of errors in these key issues of dogma.
What is striking in all this is not so much illiteracy as such (which could be attributed to "natural" ignorance), but the lack of interest, the desire to comprehend the meaning. Having memorized - often only in singing form - the Creed, many people keep it in their memory as a mysterious mantra, not understanding and not delving into even an approximate textual understanding of some phraseological turns, and not just the meaning.
It is clear that a whole range of measures is needed to radically correct this situation. There is a need for systematic catechesis of parishioners in a variety of forms - from cycles of sermons and teachings during services to special courses or regular conversations outside of service time. It should be noted that although in modern preaching the moral aspect significantly prevails over the dogmatic one, it cannot be said that the dogma is not discussed at all. Perhaps there is no need to quantitatively increase the dogmatic preaching - in the perception of such information there are rather narrow limits of perception. But it is important that such sermons have a definite plan. Maybe, for example, the goal is to eradicate at first some one common misconception. Then somehow logically you can move on to the next one.
Especially great attention should be paid to explaining the importance of a correct knowledge of the foundations of the Orthodox faith for the practical work of the salvation of the soul. Until a person understands that dogmatics is the foundation for the formation of a vector of preferences and actions corresponding to the Orthodox faith, that it gives meaning to what previously seemed an incomprehensible set of taboos and rules, that through the correct dogma the true image of God is revealed to us, and from this follows our living, personal attitude towards Him, doctrinal truths will remain for him some kind of imposed dry "theory" and binding. This aspect is especially important in our time, when a “new religiosity” is taking over the world, one of the characteristic features of which is principled, and sometimes even aggressive adogmatism.
But the very first and simple thing that can be done right now is what we started with - to return the need to confess faith in the Sacrament of Penance. This alone will to a large extent set one on the perception of the dogmatic truths of faith as a necessary link in Salvation. Confession can be made a powerful tool for the personal catechesis of parishioners; it is possible to literally reach everyone. At the same time, it is important to arrange this matter in such a way that it does not look like an exam, namely, as the individual help of the pastor, his attention to what and as a member of the Church of Christ, a person knows and thinks about matters of faith. With sufficient delicacy, such a conversation will in no way scare the parishioners. On the contrary, in a certain sense it can even inspire – after all, it turns out that it is important not only what you think about your personal life, your sins and passions, but also about the whole Church, the whole world order. From you personally, something depends in this world. You are a warrior of Christ, and therefore you are initiated into the strategy of fighting evil and the triumph of God's truth. At the same time, it is necessary to link together the two links of confession - to show how dogmatic literacy helps in the fight against the sins with which you came to confession, how it opens up to us the vision of God's plan for the Salvation of our personal and entire fallen world.
Thus, gradually, through painstaking individual pastoral work, much can be done that would seem impossible without significant reforms.
Holy Alexander Shramko
