Православное

The Pastoral Mindset.

This question is the cornerstone in the science of pastoral service and determines the mystery, which lies in the actions of a priest. Here we speak not only about the content, but also of the inclination of the pastoral heart. The reservoir of the knowledge and preparation of a priest will be discussed in the following chapter. Here we are to investigate where the spiritual sight of the pastor is directed and what distinguishes his service from the other services in the Church.

Science approaches this question differently. For a long time under the influence of the scholastic West, our textbooks repeated what was said in the Catholic and Lutheran “hodegetiks.” Only at the end of the 19th century did Archimandrite Anthony (Krapovitskiy) give an entirely different direction to this question. He turned back to the sources of the Holy Fathers and the truly Orthodox tradition, decisively getting rid of the dust of dry scholasticism.

It is usually pointed out that a pastor must be praying, spiritual, not greedy, sober, and meek and so on. But actually all these virtues are also required from the lay-people. Their application is required more strictly from a pastor and must reach perfection. However, this means that the difference here is only quantitative, and in reality, the priesthood reports to a Christian no special gift. The merit of Metropolitan Anthony in Russian Orthodox theology consists precisely of the fact that he raised before his listeners the question: “Is there a special gift of pastoral service and if there is, then, what of what does it consist?” He gave an interesting, original and completely non rational-scholastic answer to this question. This answer must not be taken as the absolute truth, out of which there is no other possible true answer, but his statement completely coincides with the spirit of Orthodox patrology and asceticism. Below we shall speak about the incompleteness of his view, after presenting its essence and the doctrine of some Holy Fathers.

First, let us say that Metropolitan Anthony was a leader in strongly expressed psychology and morality. This is evident from his work “The Psychological Data in Favor of the Free Will and Moral Responsibility,” in his articles about the moral application of dogmas, and in his famous work “The Dogma of Atonement.” At that time, in the epoch of the supremacy of positivism and determinism, a similar view was the ray of the bright sun and fresh breath of the invigorating wind. Theology cannot reconcile with it nowadays.

He reveals psychology and morality also in pastoral theology. Vocation decisively has no value; he places the stress on spiritual ascetic preparation. He paid attention to the disclosure of a pastoral gift and mood in oneself, and to the multiplication of this gift inside. This study can be schematically reduced to the pastoral influence.

The will of man is free, but it is subjected to the influence of any other will, which changes it to the extent of its significance. The force of the influence is not so much in the words and content of what is said, but in the persuasiveness of the spirit, morals, and perfection. “The pastoral sermon, — said Metropolitan Anthony, — is represented in the Holy Scripture as the force that acts not depending on the very content of the admonishment, but on the internal mood of the speaker. The influence of the soul of a pastor on the guided depends mainly on the degree of his devotion to vocation. The main foundation is not in the erudition, or the psychological finesse of the moralist, but in something else that requires neither mediation nor external manifestations. Or in something that remains together with all these manifestations, being not defined in the outside that directly pours into the soul of the guided person.”

However, what is this special mood, which can influence that guided? This is the gift of compassionate love, answers Metropolitan Anthony himself. This gift can revive the fallen sinner, can raise him from the depth of desperation and give him strength for further moral improvement. One ought not to forget that even the very atonement of the humanity is explained by this author as compassion for people in their sins, the moral bearing of their internal burden and taking them to His heart with compassion and love. As is known, Christ’s atonement of our mankind is found in the moment in Gethsemane of moral sufferings, in which the is cup not of the physical sufferings on the Cross, but of the moral sufferings for mankind.

A pastor in his activity must strive, and he will be given a beneficial gift — to identify himself spiritually with others, “to assimilate himself, his heart, with each neighbor” (Vol. 2, p. 256), to spread his news to the entire flock. In the moral experience of the sins of his flock, in compassion to their downfalls, an ideal pastor must reach the identification of himself with the others to such extent, that already “disappears any “I” and there remains only “we.” In other words, this study attempts to overcome isolation, subjectivism and to reveal the gathered mutual compassion with sufferings and happiness between all the members of the Body of Christ to the highest degree.

Metropolitan Anthony easily finds confirmation of this study in compassion and co-experience in the Epistles of Apostle Paul, and in the works of some fathers. In fact, if in the wordsof the Apostle, in the contrast with the Old Testament we have such High Priest, Who can commiserate to us in our infirmities (Hebr. 4:15), then Apostle Paul can say: “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again” (Gal. 4:19) or “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” (2 Cor. 11:29) and even long for that “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).

Metropolitan Anthony finds confirmation that this gift of compassion is given to a priest precisely in the sacrament of the hierotonia in the writings of St. John the Chrysostom. In the interpretation of the Epistle to the Colossians the Saint writes: “spiritual love is not born by anything terrestrial: it proceeds from above, from Heaven, and it is given in the sacrament of the priesthood, but mastering and maintenance of the beneficial gift depends on the aspiration of the human spirit.” Similar thoughts can be found in Chrysostom’s other works, for this understanding of pastoral service was precisely characteristic of this great Antioch preacher and priest.

Let us add some thoughts of the Holy fathers. Thus, St. Maximos the Confessor in letter 28 to Syrisitsius writes about the blessedness of the archpriest given to him to be the imitator of mercy and to long for gathering together the scattered children of God, and to connect himself to them in the undivided union of love. St. Isaac the Syrian in the 8th word wrote: “He who equally loves all with compassion and without the difference, has reached perfection.” However, his word about the “pitiful heart,” which “flares up in man towards any creation, humans, birds, animals, demons and any creature” is especially note worthy. “During the recollection of them and with the view on them, the eyes of man shed tears. Because of great and strong pity, overwhelming the heart and great compassion the heart is wrung, and it cannot bear, hear or see any harm or small grief, which this creature undergoes. Therefore, man hourly prays with tears about the dumbl creatures and the enemies of truth or about those doing him harm, for their salvation and pardon. He also prays about the race of reptiles with great pity.”

This doctrine about compassion in the pastoral heart to any suffering, and especially towards a guilty person, was to a considerable degree influenced by the writings of Dostoyevsky, to whom Metropolitan Anthony frequently and willingly refers and under the impression of whom he indisputably was. This, undoubtedly, to a considerable extent renewed that pastoral science, dried in scholasticism and rationalism, and inspired many young priests for the sacrificial service to the humanity. This influence was strengthened unquestionably by fascination with the personality of the Metropolitan himself, who in reality carried out the same doctrine and fulfilled the soul revival in practice.

But the correct study itself of compassionate pastoral love and about taking into the heart the conscience of another person must not, however, be made absolute. This is not all in which the work of the pastoral service lies. If this gift is given in the sacrament of the priesthood, then the matter is not limited within it. Theology is not just asceticism, pastoral service is not just moralizing, the transformation of man is accomplished not just by psychological understanding and the influence of one will on another.

The Metropolitan wrote: “Where there is no pastoral activity, there is pastoral conscience.” This undoubtedly narrows the thought. If we do not actually say “not he, who does not know how to speak Greek, does not have ear for music or is not of imposing appearance, is the poor pastor, butrather he who does not know how to pray, who did not kill egoism as the purpose of his life in himself, who does not know how to love, to commiserate and to pardon,” then nevertheless the service of a pastor has importance beyond it.

Even Anthony Khrapovitsky himself was not inclined to make the extreme conclusions from his postulates. He did not identify Christianity and even monasticism only with repentance (2, p. 417). To him belong the excellent lines about the degeneration of our hymnography from the samples of the inspired poetry in chanting, in which “predominates a character gloomier, full of the slavish fear and dread of the other world tortures.” He wonderfully considered the tendency of some pastors to be occupied with the “compulsory saving” and, incorrectly understanding, what it means to be an elder, to place stress “on the exploit of obedience in the sense only of performance of the known responsibilities.” Such, as he says, “deeply religious and pious ascetics, but little gifted with the pastoral spirit” become heavy officials for the guided.

The requirement which pastoral science presented to him is not only to mention the responsibilities and separate functions of a priest, but also to induce this pastoral spirit and mood in him. It is erroneous to limit this mood only to compassion, psychological influence of one conscience onto the other, to ae sermon on the moral perfection and so forth. In the theology of Metropolitan Anthony, psychology and morality always shielded the other things, and in particular, totally excluded everything mystical. However, in the pastoral mood the aspect of mysticism cannot but occupy a very important place.

The moral aspect enters into the Christian good news, in the same way as it occupies its legal place in any religious doctrine. But this aspect cannot be the limit of the entire spiritual life in Christianity. Although the very Christian sermon began from the words of St. John the Baptist: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 3:2), the understanding of the repentance in Christianity consists of the two aspects: the negative and the positive. The genius of the Greek language expresses this religious feeling by the word metanoite that differs significantly from our “repentance.” In the word “repentance” is heard the regret about what had been done, remorse, something passive in the creative sense. The bitterness about the irreparableness occupies here the main place. We do not hear in this word “ do good” but only “turn away from evil.” However, the Greek word metania does not contain this grief about what had been done, but something impulsive, calling to the new activity, the reverse to what led to the sin, because literally this word indicates “the change in the thinking” or more widely, a change in behavior, life, actions. In this call, we hear something active, constructive. The sermon of Apostle Paul directly tells us about this, since “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1) or it is still more concrete: “ And he (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). The same moral, spiritual aspect, acquires the nature not only of regretting what had been done, of repentance, which is fruitless by itself, but also the nature of creation of a new, good, positive matter, the matter of construction of the Body of Christ. Here is that sense, which the sermon of a Christian pastor and teacher must have. Construction of mysteries, work on the tasks of the church, for the creation of its mystical body. This task is already considerably more extended than crying about one’s sins.

Therefore, the matter of salvation and learning is not limited by only psychology and moralizing on the subject of misdeeds, but is the creation of something positive, that will not perish in the Celestial Reign. Even Metropolitan Anthony, who taught about the pastoral influence of one conscience onto another and about the acceptance of the other’s personality, up to the dissolution of the personal “I” in the council “we” of the pastoral love, did not think to be limited only with the negative aspect of repentance, which is indicated above. He only hid the purely mystical aspectt to a considerable extent, which completely corresponded to his realism and psychologism.

But how ought one to reveal the meaning of the apostle’s words about the mysteries’ structure? In what atmosphere must the pastoral activity of a priest flow? What can complete the unilateral character and exceptionally psychological aspect of the influence of one conscience onto another? In the most important Christian sacrament, — we will answer, — in the Eucharistic life, in Communion of the Eucharist body and the mystical body of the Church. The Eucharistic life is and must be the main spiritual aspiration of a priest.

A priest is first a theurgist. The priesthood comprises of the Liturgy, the Eucharist, the mystical unity with Christ in the sacrament of the Body and Blood. It is the unity of a pastor and the flock. The spiritual life of a priest must run, first, in this Eucharist sanctification of life, himself and the people. The Eucharist character of the church should involve a priest more than anyone else. Just as the Eucharist is impossible outside of the Church, equally the Church cannot exist without the Eucharist. The holy fathers did not write treatises on the Church, but lived in it and with it, just as they did not write scholastic treatises on the Holy Spirit, but they lived in the Spirit in the classical period of the theology. The sacraments’ stewardship, this is the way commanded by the Apostle Paul.

The priestly service includes many responsibilities. He must satisfy all the requirements of his rank. They include the duties of teaching, spiritual guidance, missionary work, and divine service, taking care of the sick, prisoners, sorrowful and many other things, if not to speak about the contemporary interests of a priest in the West — his social, sportive and other activities.

However, God can give or not give some certain talents to a priest as to any simple mortal. A priest can prove to be a poor speaker or incapable administrator of his parish, dull instructor of the Holy Scripture. He can be an insensitive or even too demanding a confessor, he can be deprived of the social service solemnity; but all this will be forgiven to him and will not blot out his spiritual making, if only he possesses the Eucharist feeling, if his main occupation is “the sacraments’ stewardship” and service at the Divine Liturgy for the mystical union of himself and his flock to the body to Christ, for the sake of being “partakers of the divine nature,” in the wordsof Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:4). A priest is given no greater authority or mystical means than this service to the Mystery of the Body and the Blood of Christ. This must be the work of life of a priest. If Metropolitan Anthony himself so wonderfully called the pastors “by the means of the lasting exploit to create the praying element inside of them,” as the capability to be raised to Heaven, then nowhere and by no method this element and ability are accomplished in a priest as in the sacrament of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The splendor of the concelebrated Holy office might correspond to the ritual of Byzantine or Vatican tsarist ceremonies, but it is not appropriate for the Chalice of the Eucharist Blood, poured for the life of the world. In concelebrated services it is possible to speak about communion of those standing in the circle around the common Chalice, or taking communion from one priest or bishop, but one cannot speak about co-serving, for here serves only one priest, only he symbolizes Christ, and the remaining priests should imagine themselves the accompanying apostles, who wait for the moment of communion from the hand of the person that serves. The history and writings of the fathers of the early Church and its Liturgy, to whom the late magnificent ritual was alien and incomprehensible, teach us this.

Therefore, a priest must thirst to celebrate the Eucharistic divine service himself and not to be satisfied only with the presence in the medium of the highest spiritual rank. A priest must have this thirst to celebrate the Eucharist, but it does not diminish his desire to take Communion from the hand of another brother. But the mystical feeling, incomprehensible to lay-people, to bring the Sacrifice himself and to transform the gifts by the power of the Holy Spirit into the Body and the Blood, entirely differs from the experience of taking Communion at the Liturgy, served by another. With this thirst to serve, it is possible to measure independently the Eucharistic power of a priest. The most spiritual pastors always felt the happiness of the theurgist service and prayer.

Father Sergius Bulgakov wonderfully wrote in his “Autobiographical Notes”: “I joined the priesthood exclusively for the purpose of serving, i.e., chiefly to celebrate the Liturgy. Because of this, coupled with innexperience I distinguished no appointments of the position of a temple priest. Very soon, I understood that in order to serve, we must have a temple or, at least, the Holy Table. As a result for the quarter of a century of my priesthood I never had my own temple, but always co-served to bishops, archpriests or held random services” (p. 53-54). These lines as the other pages of this book, tell exactly about this melancholy and thirst for one’s own service, the independent celebration of the sacrament. Here he speaks not at all the feeling of “non-resignation” with which they love to reproach, but simply the great, ardent love of a clergyman to celebrate the service actively and on his own, and not to be passive being the present co-servant of his brother, even of those older and very deserving.

This opinion about the independent celebration of the sacrament (with which, probably, a great number of priests will agree) is our personal opinion and does not pretend to an entire infallable understanding of the priestly service of the Liturgy. We do not deny the principle of the concelebrated services, accepted by the Church, which is indisputably ancient. We only want to stress the possibility for a priest to feel more natural and closer to the Eucharist sacrifice in independent service than in the concelebration.

Summing up what has been said about the pastoral gift, we must draw the following conclusion. A special gift is given to a pastor in the laying on of hands, one inaccessible to the laity: the blissful revival of souls for the Reign of God. This revival can be led in through a moral influence upon the personality of those guided, through compassionate love for the guilty, through a way of joining in with their personalities, but, mainly, through the Eucharistic service and joining the faithful, through it, to the mysterious Body of the Church. Anyone beside a priest can influence a neighbor, a mother and educator can commiserate, a close friend can also share ones sorrows, but the Eucharistic ministry is given only to a priest. The Divine Liturgy is the most powerful means of pastoral service. Neither molebens, nor commemoration services or Acathists can replace the most holy service of the Eucharist. A priest must always remember that he is called to be the establisher of God’s mysteries, that the Liturgical service and Communion of the faithful is the most powerful means of pastoral influence through to bring about the moral and mystical revival of man.