Православное

Preparation for the Priesthood.

The question of the preparation of a future pastor for his activity was central to theologians and teachers of ascetics in all times through Christian history. For more clarity, this question must be divided into several special problems. We have divided the questions into two: 1) if preparation for the high priestly service is necessary, or if the entire matter must be entrusted to the will of God, which fills and cures everything, and 2) what this preparation must consist of, should it be acknowledged to be necessary. In this last case, a number of special topics will arise: spiritual, intellectual, external preparation and so forth.

In general, one encounters two opposing viewpoints. According to one, no human science, specialization or skill can, nor must do anything there, where the blessedness of the Holy Spirit oversees. It is omnipotent, and therefore sufficient. The other opinion is the exact opposite: preparation is necessary and, moreover, it should be the most thorough, developed, and broadest possible. If, as it seems to us, one view is that a priest must meet only the necessary and simplest requirements of liturgical typicon and primitively understood piety which (in the opinion of the eastern bishop Porfirius Uspensky) would be limited to using a censer and aspergillum, and nothing more was required for service (as many think, out of humility), then, in the other view the preparation of a future priest is seen in the widest possible terms and he is required to understand agriculture, medicine, different practical disciplines (from the 1893 regulations of our spiritual schools ), and be skilled to lead youth camps and to be aware of social questions.

Pastoral science needs to find the informed equilibrium and reach that medium, “golden, royal” way, on which a priest would not turn to primitivism and obscurantism, but also would not be excessively fascinated by the mundane and with interests and concerns not typical of a pastor.

From these introductory observations, we pass over to the answer the first of the presented questions, if preparation for the priesthood is necessary.

The question answers itself in the affirmative. The entire history of the priesthood and all the experience of the church teach us this. It is correct that in the past Christian life spiritual schools have not always existed — it was not always required from future pastors to be prepared to accept their high calling. On the other hand, with the establisment of more calmness in the life of the Church and its organization, its hierarchy longed for the arrangement of systematic education. Church history recognizes famous schools in Alexandria, Ephesus, Constantinople, Rome, and in many other places even in the first centuries of its life. The epoch of great theological disputes and appearance of heresies established this requirement even more sharply. If in the first three centuries there was no systematic theological and pastoral education yet, then by the time of the acceptance of Orthodoxy as a free and state religion, this education had become better and more organized. It did not always take the same forms. For a long time monasteries were the centers of education. Sometimes outstanding hierarchs or pastors gathered the future priests around themselves; the training of pastors was thus in the periods of the enslavement of the Church (by Tatars, Turks, etc.), or in the countries, situated far from the main centers of life. But it is possible to assert definitively that the Church was never inattentive to this question, with the greatest caution allowing the laying on of hands upon young candidates to the priesthood, and requring thorough and many-faceted preparation for the pastoral calling.

Among the famous teachers and pastors of the Church, we may find the most educated people of their time. The works of John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Photius and others are full of quotations from the diverse writings, both spiritual and secular, including from pagan writers. Among the various errors about the essence of the Christianity, one of the most dangerous is the idea of Christianity as the religion of simpletons, of the ignorant and of people incapable of being educated. Julian the Apostate and famous Celsius asserted this in their time from feelings hostile to Christianity and from a desire to belittle it. Nowadays people devoted to Christianity sometimes assert the same, but for the sake of safeguarding its purity and prepared by its simplicity and tender feelings.

It was symbolically indicated above that not only simple pastors, but also eastern wise men searching for God, the carriers of the highest truth outside of Christianity, came to the cave of the incarnated Logos. If, on the one hand, the Savior called the simple fishermen, then on the other hand, numbered among those who most spread Christianity was the Apostle Paul, a most educated person of his time. Christianity very early knew such thinkers and defenders as the holy Martyr Justin the Philosopher, Athenagorus, Clement of Alexandria, to say nothing of the universal teachers and pastors of the Golden Age of the history of the Church.

We must recall that the Apostle Paul, the author of three Pastoral Epistles, created many requirements for his disciples and colleagues and indicated the proper checking of those, who seek ordination at the hand of a bishop. The Apostle proscribed: “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Tim. 5:22), placed the requirement that, besides the moral qualities, the bishop would be “apt to teach.”(3:2); demanded, “Let these also first be proved” (3:10) of those looking for the ordination. A priest must always “exhort and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15); retain that “which thou hast learned and hast been assured of” (2 Tim. 3:14), “holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9); “these things command and teach” (1 Tim. 4:11), “give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (4:13).

If from the apostolic Epistles one would pass over to the works of the teachers of the classical period of our theology, then the confirmation of the above can very easily be found. Supporters of simplification in Christianity love to refer to examples from the lives of certain pastors, like bishop Sevira, who was a cloth maker, and Alexander, a collier. However, such cases do not represent the general rule, but can be found in the history of the priesthood as the exception to the general mass. The Church required something different. Through the mouths of Her best and most experienced teachers She prescribed that a priest, especially a bishop, have experience not only in piety, but also in studies and scholarly wisdom, which grows and deepens with years, due to the increasing danger to the Church. It is always necessary to remember that the direction of the Church ship straightened in the critical minutes of large disturbances, heresies, schisms and other temptations through the help of faithful, tested and wise helmsmen. However, the temptation of primitivism, apparently, always soared above the priesthood. Not without a reason many outstanding writers of the Church warned those searching for the priesthood about the difficulty of this art, raising it above the human wisdoms and sciences. There exists an interesting legend from the life of Pope Leo the First, the Great, to whom the Apostle Peter announced the forgiveness of all his sins before his death, except the sin of rapid and careless ordination of priests. Through his special prayer in a second vision, he was told about the forgiveness of this sin as well.

Therefore, it is natural that the great teachers and hierarchs of the Universal Church repeatedly dropped words of warning or reproach about an inattentive attitude toward acceptanting the priesthood both from the side of those seeking it and from the side of those ordaining others to the priesthood. To such luniaries as St. Chrysostom belong the famous “Six Books About the Priesthood,” which can be referred as the guiding manual and warning to the future pastors of the church; to St. Ambrose of Mediolan “About the Responsibilities of the Clergymen”; to blessed Geronimos “On the Life of Clerics.” St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist wrote about the responsibilities of priests. The words on the same theme by St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Gregory the Theologian, who being forcedly ordained to the priesthood by his father, escaped to the desert, being frightened of the high calling of priesthood, are remarkable. His 42nd, or word in defence, explains his escape and at the same time confesses how he thought of life and the work of a priest. This word serves as a very edifying guide for priests.

This is what Chrysostom writes: “They make the priests of ignoramuses and put them as the supplement to the property, for which the Son of God paid with his Blood! We disfigure the priesthood, putting inexperienced people in its charge.” Frequently we hear the opinion that preparation disturbs piety, holiness, resignation, etc. Concerning this it is worth citing the words of blessed Geronimos: “The ignorant and simple priests consider themselves to be saints, because they know nothing.” However, St. Gregory the Theologian (word 3) warns: “it is necessary to become wise, and then to teach”; “there is no established boundary between how to teach and to learn”; “It is one thing to guide sheep and oxen, and another to guide human souls.”

In subsequent times never ceased the warning voice of those teachers and archpriests, who realized the danger of the rapid and untested ordination. St. Tikhon of Zadonsk and St. John of Kronstadt wrote about preparation, and much is said about this in the courses on Pastoral theology. Let us recall that some specialists in Pastoral Theology (like Metr. Anthony), denying the need of the so-called vocation, shifted the center of focus to the question of pastoral preparation.

The contemporary setting of the spiritual training made the period of the preparation for the priesthood long. In the pre-revolutionary Russia the compulsory course of the priestly education was 10 years (four years of the spiritual school and six years of the spiritual seminary), Those desiring to get even higher preparation looked for the four-year course in the Academy, so a complete education took 14 years. The Catholic world also has its small seminaries, large seminaries and faculties, which correspond to our Academies. Sometimes, in special cases (after wars, catastrophes or in the outlying districts), the need for clergy made it necessary to resort to reduced pastoral courses, but that was only the exception to the general rule.

Passing to the question of what the training of a pastor consists, we must divide this into: 1) spiritual preparation, 2) intellectual preparation and 3) external preparation.

1) Spiritual preparation.

A candidate to the priesthood, a future pastor, prepares to step on the spiritual path, or, following the Russian term, to join the clergy. This word, “dukhovenstvo,” by itself imposes many obligations. It does not completely correspond to the single-valued terms in the other languages. Sveshtenstvo (Serbian.); the clergy, clergé, clergy, (French, English, Greek); its sense rather corresponds to the German notion Geistlicher from Geist, i.e. the spirit. This means that the clergy must be, first of all, spiritual. This implies the belonging to the reign of the Spirit, not to the reign of the social ordinariness, to the sphere of material calculations and interests, political longings and so on. This is first, nurturing within oneself the spirit of the Reign of God, its construction in oneself, since it is not off somewhere, but on the terrestrial territory, inside of us. The Reign of God is not a theocratic idyll, but the category of our spirituality. This is the first thing that is required in the way of the spiritual education and is what so frequently the clergy lacks, absorbed in politics and national tendencies or concerns about their daily bread and the search for material goods. This growth in spirituality is not given immediately, but it is acquired in the long-term course of the entire life, by training oneself since from youth, through decisive choice, where to direct one’s aspirations, — to the reign of this world or to the one, which is not of this world.

This choice has two aspects — the negative and the positive. The first relates to the decisive rejection of what attracts man in this world: the sin of worldly calculations, career motives, national-political prejudices, etc. This does not at all mean aversion from any cultural setting and from participation in the society of people, but this is release from any attraction to this world, to evil, and to its non-spiritual instincts. This means not to be a slave of the calculations of this world as of anything sinful. However, the positive side lies in the accumulation of everything spiritual in oneself, of all that belongs to the Reign of blessedness. This must be developed; this notion comprises a number of goals.

According to St. Gregory the Theologian, a pastor must be celestial, that is, not participating in the sins of the world and not captivated with the worldy material goods. A pastor must be holy, but this means not the spiritual Puritan style and sickly spiritualism, not learning some special Church Slavonic expressions by heart, not hypocrisy but authentic spirituality. That is, longing to becomine a son of God, for being spiritualized from inside, making the image of God from oneself and the others, as the highest ideal of the Orthodox asceticism. A pastor must be merciful and compassionate, which does not indicate sentimentality, but the ability to assimilate and acquire the happiness, sins, grief and sufferings of others. A pastor must resemble a saint, that is, become similar to Christ, Who is the perfect ideal of the Kind Pastor. A pastor must to be prayerful, that is, loving prayer in all its manifestations --- namely private, instructed prayer, (Jesus prayer), temple prayer, and especially the Divine Liturgy service.

A priest without prayer, not knowing how to pray, not having obtained the fundementals of prayer, not having fallen in love with the divine service and deviating from it in every possible way under the different pretexts, is a contradiction to himself and a barren official in the spiritual department. A pastor must be humble, rid of the instincts of pride, swagger, arrogance, ambition and selfishness. This resignation must be expressed not in the low bows before the higher ranks and is not proved with the signature epithet “unworthy priest N.,” but with the real release from all attacks of egocentrism, and not placing oneself in the center of the entire world, not admiring oneself and so forth.

These are the central objectives that a priest must approach, and all this can be summed up as one thing — spirituality, i.e., personal release from the authority of any sin and from every mundane, national and political temptation. Now we should turn to the means of this spiritual education.

It would not be erroneous to say that the prayer is the most powerful means for the acquisition of the spirituality. This is the field of the spiritual life itself, and furthermore, thanks to the latter it is possible to obtain other goods from the spiritual world, one can ask for what one lacks. We must learn to pray from starting school. From those loving the divine service or deviating from it can already be seen, where the aspirations of a future priest are directed to, if it is difficult for him to bear the exploit of the prayer, or if it appears to be the best minutes of the day. We should not generalize this, since the gift of prayer is individual. To some the church service prayer is closer, for it is aesthetically attractive, regulation organized; to the others — the concelebrated service prayer is more difficult than the private and secret prayer of the heart. However, a priest must obtain this spiritual foundation.

Then follows the reading of the Holy Scripture, learning it by heart, reflection on it, plunging into the interpretation of the Scripture, acquaintance with the ascetic literature, both of the holy fathers and the contemporary instruction.

Furthermore, for spiritual growth we must become acquainted in general with the literature of the holy fathers, and mainly, with the ascetic literature, as guides to moral perfection, emanating from the experience of the long-term hermetic and cloistered life. Here must be a gradual hierarchical preparation in reading: we must begin from the more simple writings (Abba Dorotheus, John of Kronstadt, Theophan the Recluse and Ignatius Bryanchaninov, the letters of Ambrose of Optina Hermitage, etc.), and then pass to the more difficult ones as for example, “The Philocalia,” Isaac the Syrian, “The Ladder,” Simeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas.

A rather essential means for one’s preparation to the priesthood can be frequent confession, spiritual conversations with experienced people, reading from the life examples of the seekers of piety, famous confessors and men of prayer. The Western world recognizes special prolonged exercises in prayer and contemplation, accomplished in monasteries. Such secluded and concentrated exercises, or fasting, substantially teach and form the intellectual wealth in the soul.

Visiting the sick, helping the suffering as well as any compassion to those in need can contribute to spiritual preparatiom. It can be useful to concentrate not on the beauties of this world, but on the mortal hour, eternity, on the other world often. For this, reading the Psalms with the prayer for the departed can also help greatly a young candidate to the priesthood.

Summarizing the above, we must combine with the spiritual creating everything that is useful for the rejection of the obliging laws and customs of this world and that can help to a future priest to be holy and spiritual. All this is the content of a special discipline, recognized under the name of pastoral asceticism.

2. Intellectual preparation.

In this question it is necessary, first of all, to overcome and decisively deny one most harmful and inveterate prejudice, that the intellectual preparation is not necessary for a pastor, but is even harmful, since it, as it seems to some that it harms humility, prayierful practice and spirituality. This is the one of the most dangerous errors both in society and among the clergy, and most important, among the leaders of the future priests. We raised the question about the three sides of preparation: spiritual, intellectual, external, — in that hierarchical order on purpose: in order to state decisively once and for all, that without the spiritual preparation and spiritual aspiration a priest is nothing, being a contradiction to himself and something false and unworthy. Therefore, we insist again that, without a doubt, the first place belongs to personal spiritual preparation and then to any other kind. However, we must emphasize here that personal spiritual preparation does not at all interfere with any other improvement, such as mental or external. Contemporary reality insistently requires the training of pastors with the broadest possible mental range of vision and external qualities of decency and public service. However, as to fears that mental or external preparation can injure or even destroy the intellectual wealth of a priest, one should answer that the cost to this spirituality, which can allegedly suffer from the touch of culture and science, is very small. Orthodox spirituality, we must remember, is far from being fragile, as many might fear.

If we turn to history, again, then the examples from the past give rich material for the favorable resolution of the presented question. In essence, the fathers of the classical epoch of the Orthodox theology: St. Athanasius of Cappadocia, St. Maximus the Confessor, Patriarch Photius, St. John of Damascus and many others — were representatives of the broadest intellectual culture of their time. They belonged to the refined elite of that epoch. Their creations are full of proofs taken not only from the writings of the earlier holy fathers, but also from the purely external evidence of heathen writers. They knew perfectly philosophy, rhetoric, mathematics, and music, i.e., everything that in the language of pedagogy of those days was called the “seven numbered art”or “trivium, quadrivium.” Granting the superiority of spiritual preparation and piety, they did not fear at all that a secular education somehow would be able to keep them from piety and spirituality. And, in reality, neither their humility nor their faith or the prayerful efforts suffered because they knew Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, etc. Those who at least a little plunged in the study of patrology and read the works of the holy fathers cannot but be astonished with the erudition and high level of those whom they wish to represent as simpletons and obscurants. The enemies of Christianity Lucian, Celsius, and Julian wanted to represent them precisely so, but in reality the holy fathers struck even the heathens with their “external” i.e. intellectual preparation. In cloister libraries they preserved not only assorted books on the lives of saints and ascetic collections. It is interesting, for example, that St. Anastasias of the Sinai, a refined Hellenist and expert in his language, used expressions, which are located only in such rarely read works as scholium on Euripides or Aristophanes. In order to memorize such linguistic details, it was necessary to attentively read such books as now, probably, they will consider completely inappropriate for monastic reading. From the knowledge of Plutarch or Plotinus at that time, it is possible to draw a conclusion about our epoch as well. An acquaintance with contemporary philosophy, literature, sciences and art can only raise a pastor in the eyes of his disciples, who desire to learn from a priest anything about one or another cultural phenomenon. For a priest such knowledge can only become useful weapon in his missionary and apologetic activity. He can influence the flock only when he knows how this flock lives and what attracts it. The spirituality of a priest will not suffer, if he knows contemporary philosophical and literary trends. But the entire intellectual preparation implies, first of all, an authentic and deep spirituality in a priest himself, and this preparation on no account can become the pretext to turn into a layman.

It is quite necessary to remember the effect of cultural influence on the society. Society, left by its pastors to the mercy of fate, given in its training and education to itself, easily yields to outside pressures and grows without the blessedl guiding influence of a priest. (However, no one of the cultured people will address a pastor who knows nothing about contemporary questions or who has a contemptuous idea of everything outside his specialty). They wait for the authoritative and weighty word from a priest who is wise, competent and established. The Orthodox clergy in the view of many historical and social reasons sometimes could not create such an influence and be in the forefront of cultural development.

In France, the clergy was the educated class, and people listened to it. During the 300 years of existence of the French Academy numbered among the “immortal” were 120 priests (105 before the revolution of 1789 and 15 afterwards). In the ranks of these 120 the Academy there were 15 cardinals, 33 bishops and archbishop, 13 oratorios (a monastic order?), 1 Dominican (La-Corder), several Jesuits and the rest — simply curés. The Russian academy existed only for 200 years, but to it belonged such persons as Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov and Plato Levshin, several priests (fathers Kochetov and Gerasim Pavsky, Archimandrite Polycarp Goytannikov). By this purely formal designation, it is not possible to limit the presence of culture and education in the ranks of the clergy. (But even, expanding these limits, we will not see as many experienced leaders in the matter of civilization in the Orthodox clergy as we see in the countries of the Western Europe).

Nevertheless, it is possible to give many examples of educated priests whowere leaders in the affairs and models of the spiritual piety and pastoral education. It suffices to remember such refined thinkers as Dean Feodor Golubinskiy, Archimandrite Theophan Avsenev and Archbishop Nikanor Brovkovich; the famous sinologists Archimandrites Avvacum the Righteous and Palladium Kapharov; the Hebraist father Gerasim Pavsky; Bishop Porfirius Uspenskiy and Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, — the greatest Russian Byzantologists and remarkable experts of Greek, and surely the of their native Russian language. This same Antonin and his brother Plato Kapustin, one of the best-known Moscow priests, were good astronomers, and Father Plato wrote articles on higher mathematics. The last protopresbyter of the Assumption cathedral (before the revolution), Father Lubimov, was a master of the Russian literature, which he taught in the famous Fisher secondary school, where the teacher of religion was Father Fudel, a great friend of Constantine Leontyev and of the writer himself. Our foreign priests became members of the scientific societies of Germany, Sweden, Spain and England.

There is another example from Russia’s past: Protopresbyter John Pervushin, a humble and prayerful priest, a good and caring pastor, was a mathematician well known in the scientific world. After his graduation from the spiritual academy he went to a country parish where he spent his entire life. Gifted with exceptional mathematical abilities, he sent his works to the Academy of Sciences, knew the outstanding mathematicians not only of Russia, but also of the West. His most complex works on pure mathematics and the theory of numbers were rewarded by our Academy and they were noted at the Mathematical Congress in Chicago and Neapolitan physical-mathematical society. The theory of numbers did not distract him from being a good priest.

It is possible, if one so desired to continue this list. But the important thing is to note that neither the title of a member of the Academy of Sciences nor studies of astronomy, philosophy and other manifestations of learning prevented the previously mentioned spiritual men from being prayerful, excellent pastors, humble monks, and most importantly, from having an enormous spiritual influence on those whom they guided.

There is no greater untruth and slander about Orthodox spirituality, then its comparison with obscurantism and gnosimachia. The obscurant tastes of some spiritual persons must not be projected upon Orthodoxy itself. It has nothing to do with that.

It is especially necessary to remember that nowadays, when the enemies of the Church mobilize all the forces to fight with it, that the presence of educated pastors, scientifically prepared and ready to always give an answer to our “hope,” in the words of the Apostle Peter, is more than proper. The point is that from a pastor one expects not a timid (as if humble) acceptance of his incompetance, but rather the word of authority, gravitiy. (Our clergy is not used to be a leader in these questions; it is no wonder that they refer to people distant from the church and spirituality for the guidance.). The lack of spirituality of the intelligentsia can cure the clergy itself to a considerable degree by putting it into closer contact with its interests and pursuits.

Turning to contemporary reality, we must recall that the enormous influence on society of Metropolitan Anthony, father S. Bulgakov, A. Yelchaninov, G. Spassky was explained by the fact that they knew the secular literature perfectly well and kept up with science, art and intellectual trends.

In the secular education of all times it is possible to find things both useful and harmful for a pastor. The fathers of the church extracted from Plato and Homer that which could bring edification for their time, but they avoided everything corrupted and unnecessary in heathen learning. Here the matter is not in one century or another and the danger is not in just contemporary or ancient. Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret wrote in his time (1858): “They fight against the contemporary ideas. Are the ideas of Orthodoxy and morals no longer contemporary? Did they remain only in the past? Could we all be already pagans? It is not the time that is to blame, but rather the non-Orthodox and immoral thoughts, spread by certain people. Thus, we must fight against the non-Orthodox and immoral thoughts, but not against the “contemporary” ones (“The Coll. of Thoughts and Opinions” volume 4, p. 344). It is not possible to find salvation from the dangers of the present day in a barren desire to return the past. Metropolitan Philaret wrote in 1839 to the Dean of the Trinity Monasteries, Archimandrite Anthony: “It is not possible to substitute the ninetheenth century withy the fourth or the fifth, and Vologda province — by Thives” (volume 1, p. 315). Anyway, our great Holy Father understood the benefit of education and always protected Orthodoxy from the attacks and charges in the obscurantism. He wrote to Novgorod Metropolitan Isador: “The critics think in vain that the faith of Christ is hostile to the knowledge. It is not hostile to the true knowledge, only because it is not in the union with the ignorance” (Coll. Volume 5, p. 48).

It follows, of course, having discussed this subject, to mention the possible danger waiting for a pastor in this way. Absorbed by the desire to be cultural and well read, a priest can easily yield to the temptation of the world and, without himself noticing, to the incorrect estimation of mental values. When a pastor begins to lose his essence and unity, when he substitutes secular interests for his spirituality, when literature, philosophy and science replace prayer and compassion to the flock in his heart, then this means that the interior equilibrium is disrupted and a pastor has strayed. Becoming acquainted with the secular must be checked by the degree of his pastoral prayerful attitude and by his purely spiritual aspirations. The purpose of the priestly life and activity is the spiritual foundation of oneself and ones close ones. Intellectual and secular education can only serve as a means of pastoral influence and in addition to ones own internal wealth. A pastor must not fear intellectuality, but neither must he be fascinated by it to the detriment of his spirituality, because for the achievement of perfection in the spiritual plane education is always more difficulty acquired than in the intellectual, scientific and artistic plane. As in many other respects, the unique correct path lies in between and in the achievement of complete accord and equilibrium of all forces.
3. External preparation.

Not the least of mistakes among some people is the conviction that pastor does not need a formal education. The tendency towards simplification in Orthodoxy is conflated with the external simplicity of the clergy and some even perceive in this a positive quality. They frequently wish to find in the lack of a secular education the anchor of salvation for some imaginary “humility.” There is no need to prove that the virtue of humility has nothing in common with ill breeding. It is clear that genuine humility cannot be harmed by purity, good breeding and good manners. It is difficult to imagine St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Photius of Constantinople or St. Maximos the Confessor in the past times, or St. Seraphim, elder Ambrose of Optina Hermitage, or Bishop Theophan the Recluse, in our days, possessing a forced rough style for the protection of their “humility,” or being led by the fear to lose their spiritual aspiration. Such misunderstanding of the Christian spirit fills the words of Tertullian, (who already at that time had turned to his montanistic rigorism), that to “God the purity of the soul is more important than the neatness of the body.” It is incomprehensible, how the neatness of the body could decrease the purity of our soul

But of what does his preparation consist, and where should a priest direct his attention, in order to hold himself contantly to external standards of decency?
A) In respect to his exterior look. A pastor must always remember that “people who meet you judge by appearance.” Appearance has enormous value in the company of man. Something insignificant, a trifle, can repel others at first sight An innate feeling of fastidiousness is common to man, and because of it he cannot force himself to overlook a number of external trifles: neatness, odors, sounds, etc. A priest must never forget this. By not having paid attention to some negligible trifle, he can lose something much more significant, like the ability to draw a demanding person to himself. Hence it follows that a pastor must think thoroughly about his appearance, and always be clean and neat in both clothing and body. The cassock and podrassnik must be hemmed, clean and hang properly. Poverty of clothing will not be held in reproach, but its untidiness can repel those around one. More than that, a rich, silk or moiré cassock can also serve unfavorably and give a rise to reproach to a priest for foppery. However, poor clothing will never become a reproach to a pastor, if he wears it with dignity and keeps in order and neatly. Footwear, even if old, must always be clean and in order.

The same concerns the cleanliness of ones hands, face, teeth, because neatness has great significance for parishioners and those praying. An unpleasant smell, dirty nails or ears can repel the sensitive people. We must have great internal concentration and an absence of fastidiousness, in order, for example, to stand near a man spreading the bad smell of tobacco or garlic fumes during confession, as a priest suffers when someone like this confesses.

The attitude of the priests towards their long hair and beards must also be limited by the requirements of neatness. The Church regulations prescribe that one cut a shaggy moustache, as is necessary for communion of the clergy. The right to cut hair was always granted to our foreign clergy. Even in the time of Emperess Elizabeth, the Spiritual Consistory ordered that the priests should cut their hair, but not at the barbers, so that the priests’ wives would perform this function. Moderately cut hair, a trimmed beard and a moderately shortened moustache in no way can decrease the spirituality of a priest or give a way for a reproach for foppery.

Everything said about the appearance must not be turned into the opposite extreme, when a priest reaches a state of foppery and exaggerated secularity. Here, as in everything else, a sense of proportion must help to keep in balance.

B) In respect of time. A priest must be chronometrically precise in the designation of his business conversations, visits, and Divine services. A lack of accuracy can greatly irritate businessmen and those guarding their and others’ time. A priest must live according to a timetable; his day should be calculated up to a minute, all the time intervals considered. The Divine service must begin exactly at the time assigned. There must not be any changes in favor of careless and tardy persons. Only a case of the mortal danger, a call to the bed of a seriously sick, and the Baptism of a weak baby can allow a priest to change his schedule. A pastor is obligated to bring up himself in this spirit, and to ask those he guides to do the same. These are the conditions of the good public manners.
C) In respect to the language and gestures. The word of a priest draws the attention of those surrounding more than do those of simple people. By ones words we also get anidea of the internal content of ones thoughts and feelings. A free tongue displays disorderliness of thought; embittered words testify of the presence of the passion of anger; rough words are the sign of a deficiency in good breeding. On the other hand, strict, restrained, precise words, but flavored by good-natured humor in the proper place, show that they proceed from a disciplined, sharp, thoughtful mind, but one deprived neither of the power of observation nor of gentle merriment. Here a priest sees the two extremes, equally unpleasant. On the one hand, undisciplined and rather rough language, left over from school days, full of jargon and easily passing to the familiarity, even more than public decency permits. Unfortunately, this one can be observed even of persons of high hierarchical position. It also happens, on the other hand, that to pursue some “traditional” Levite position not inherited from our ancestors, a priest memorizes a number of special prhases which seem spiritual to him, expressions, like: “ so save you the Lord” instead of the usual: “thank you” or “thanks,” or instead of the simple “I” — “I the unworthy.” “Your Holiness” instead of simply “you”; “my unworthiness,” “the most humble” and other expressions, which in the consciousness of such a neophyte must seem to him a clear sign of his spirituality and humility in the Levite position. In this category belong a passion to show off whether it is proper or not with Slavonc quotations from the Bible and official books, which, being sometimes appropriate to the place and time, can flavor and revive a speech, but very frequently make it artificial, devised, and sometimes simply inappropriate.

The movements and gestures of a priest must also be measured and balanced, — for that we must work out for oneself a natural rhythm of walking and gesticulation. The scurry of a priest along the streets does not correspond to his rank, but pompousness as well makes him comical and does not fit his role. Iimmoderate gesticulation coarsens the habit of a pastor, but also a stone-like rigidity in his appearance gives away an unnatural tension. In the presence of an elder brother, a priest always must remember his place: not to sit down without permission, to go to the left of the elder, to let him pass, etc. He must not hurry to occupy a seat on public transportation. If someone will offer a priest a seat, he can take it, but he should always try to offer it to the older men, the sick, women with the children, the weak and so forth.

D) In respect to the correspondence. The paperwork of a priest must be in irreproachable order. An answer to each letter should follow immediately or after gathering of the necessary information. Letters must be accurately dated; it is useful to have copies of business papers to avoid misunderstandings. Letters addressed to hierarchically higher persons must be written according to the established protocol, — without any familiarity. The signature also should be according to the established form, without the excessive “sinful, unworthy” and other falsely humble epithets. The language of the letters means more than just the words and it must be thought through and checked. “The letters remain,” notes an ancient saying. In general, it is always necessary to remember that it is undesirable that with this or that action or word one would subsequently blush or be ashamed. Moderate humor and witticism only testify in favor of the author, but disorderliness and garrulity reveal unthinking and an absence of discipline. The equilibrium is here, somewhere in between.
E) In respect to the decoration of a dwelling. This is of value as well and can give a means for the positive or negative estimation of a priest in the eyes of his parishioners. Neatness and order in the house were even the topic of the pastoral epistles of Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The dwelling of a pastor must testify to his internal arrangement and about the interests of his life. Modesty, seriousness and cleanliness must decorate the house of a priest. The poverty will never be reproached, but disorder or excessive secularity can tempt many people. It is always necessary to remember the weakness of the human nature and its tendency towards temptations. On the other hand, one should not forget the big impression, which comes at first glance. Besides being clean, it must and can testify about the interests and the internal content of its owner. Books and a love of them will draw the attention of educated people to a priest. The adornment of the walls by sceneries, portraits or reproductions of pictures must not offend the aesthetical feeling. It is erroneous to think that the room of a priest must be decorated with “pious” pictures, good, but visibly insulting the artistic feeling. Everything banal, petty bourgeois, commercial, can only cause a smile and make people suspect the owner is imitating an overall level. Here, as in everything, the danger is in deviations into extremes of the inappropriate mundane life on the one hand and the falsely devised genre of the “everyday life father,” whose original model has already disappeared from life long ago.

In conclusion, probably about the most important thing is this— to know how to develop personal spiritual tact in order to determine the manner and limitations which most likely suit the case and situation at hand.