First Sunday of Great Lent--March 2

First Sunday of Great Lent MATINS (IX) John 20:19-31 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. LITURGY OF ST. BASIL Hebrews 11:24-26, 32-12:2 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. John 1:43-51 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Cyprian of Carthage and the Fruitful Exercise of Episcopal Authority

St. Cyprian, third century bishop of Carthage, is well-known to historians of the early church. His life and letters have been published in many collections of the church fathers—most recently in the ‘Popular Patristic Series’ from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, which has published some of his letters and treatises in two volumes under the title ‘On the Church” in volumes 32 and 33 of that series. Cyprian’s letters and works witness to the pastoral challenges he faced and how he dealt with them. I would like to reflect on his challenges and responses, and on how these reflect on the modern episcopate of the Orthodox church and on how our modern bishops deal with the challenges facing them. Cyprian faced two challenges in particular: 1. criticism of his flight during the persecution of the church in North Africa when he fled to save his life; and 2. the assertion of authority on the part of the confessors (i.e. those who had been arrested for their faith and continued to confess Christ despite imprisonment and torture) to reinstate the lapsed to communion. These confessors were presuming illegitimately (as Cyprian thought) to restore the lapsed to the communion of the church apart from the blessing of the bishop. This authority to restore the lapsed Cyprian felt belonged to bishops only, and Cyprian protested its use by the confessors. This disagreement between the confessors and Cyprian created a great problem for him, and it vexed the unity of the Church in his day. I suggest that these two challenges faced by St. Cyprian are not unrelated, and that as we examine the roots of these two challenges we shall learn something of value to us today. To understand Cyprian, it is necessary to understand episcopal authority as it functioned in the third century, for this differed quite dramatically from the way it functions today. As is indicated by the little volume by Gregory Dix, Jurisdiction in the Early Church, bishops in the third century did not exercise their pastoral authority in their dioceses/ city churches in isolation, but rather as heads of their local presbyteria. That is, each diocese was effectively ruled by a college or council of presbyters, headed by the bishop, and it was this college which made the pastoral decisions which the bishop would then carry out and perform liturgically. For example, the decision regarding whom to ordain was not made by the bishop alone, but rather by the college of presbyters, and so it is that Cyprian writes to his fellow presbyters justifying his action in ordaining a subdeacon and a reader without first obtaining their assent. As Dix writes, “one has only to read the anxious apologies which Cyprian sends to his clergy (Ep. xxviii.) for having in an emergency ordained a subdeacon and a lector [i.e. a reader] without their express consent, to realise how limited was the bishop’s prerogative in such matters”. The issue is not whether Cyprian was justified in proceeding with his ordinations to minor orders; it is that apart from the blessing of his fellow presbyters, the bishop could do nothing. The presbyters ruled and the bishop acted and liturgized. The bishop was not set over the presbyters as their ruler, but within them, as the primus inter pares. To quote Dix again, the bishop “has initiative, leadership, a recognized pre-eminence. But the power of authoritative decision is not yet his. That is still the prerogative of the collective Sanhedrin of presbyters”. That is not to say that the bishop functioned simply as the passive instrument of the college of presbyters. Indeed, as the chief liturgical celebrant, charismatically-empowered by his ordination to bestow the Spirit, he functioned as their leader. He led, and the people followed. The “recognized pre-eminence” of which Dix spoke counted for something. Simply put, the bishop usually got his way. But the significant thing is that he got his way through the exercise of his moral authority. As the leader of the local Christians, he spoke as a prophet, calling all the holy laos to follow him in a certain direction, and the laos usually believed that he spoke for God and willingly followed him. Thus the bishop, the presbyters and the people functioned in unity, as a single royal priesthood (1 Pt. 2:9). There was no conflict between bishop and presbyters, as if each represented a mutually antagonistic Management and Union, each striving against the other to assert their own will. For both were united in a mutual submission to Christ, and were committed to discern His will. They listened to each other in love and acted in concert. That at least was the theory. We can see a distant echo of such a theory in (of all places) the Statute of the OCA. In Article X, on “the Parish”, it says that “no activities in the parish can be initiated without [the Rector’s] knowledge, approval and blessing, neither should he do anything pertaining to the parish without the knowledge of his parishioners and parish organs elected by them, so that always and everywhere there may be unity, mutual trust, cooperation and love”. That is a fair statement of the theory behind the joint functioning of the third century bishop (i.e. the local pastor), the presbyters (i.e. his council) and the faithful (i.e. the local church) in the time of St. Cyprian. All were meant to function as a unity, mutually submitting to each other in love and striving together to discern the will of God. In political terms, such an arrangement would be described as a system of checks and balances. St. Paul more accurately refers to it as the functioning of a body, the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12). The traditional practice in the church in Cyprian’s day was for confessors, those who had suffered for their Faith, to share in this effective ruling of the Church. As Allen Brent writes in his Introduction to Cyprian’s letters in the “Popular Patristic Series” referred to above, “The prerogatives of the martyrs to absolve [the lapsed] by offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and communicating the penitent as the act of reconciliation per se, with the claim that they were ordained to the presbyterate by virtue of their confession without the imposition of hands, may well have been of great antiquity.” Certainly Hippolytus of Rome would have agreed. In his Apostolic Tradition, (dating from about the same time), he writes of confessors, “A confessor, if he was in chains for the Name of the Lord, shall not have hands laid on him for the diaconate or the presbyterate, for he has the honour of the presbyterate by his confession”. Thus the ancient and traditional practice was for confessors, those who had suffered for the Lord in persecution but had survived, to share in the effective rule of the Church along with presbyters, even without their formal ordination. The early Church was intensely charismatic: what counted was whether or not one had the Holy Spirit. The bishops and presbyters had the Spirit by virtue of the imposition of hands; the confessors had the Spirit by virtue of their suffering. These men were all accounted prophetic, and able to speak the authoritative Word of God. The People of God, recognizing this authentic Word, followed the lead of those who spoke it. Thus, when the confessors of Cyprian’s church offered the names of the penitent lapsed for restoration, they were doing no more than what was traditional. Like the presbyters, they spoke and gave their counsel; and the bishop, as the chief prophet, discerned the true Word of the Lord and divine direction, and added his seal and blessing and followed the counsel of the presbyters and confessors. Thus the bishop functioned together with presbyters and confessors as a unity, together discerning and speaking the divine Word. What happened at Carthage was that this unity had broken down. I suggest that the immediate cause of the breakdown was Cyprian’s loss of moral authority when he fled from the midst of his people to save his life during the persecution. Make no mistake: Cyprian was right to flee—circumstances demanded it for the good of the Church (for he must survive to support them in their time of crisis) and the Gospel allowed it (see Mt. 10:23). In his treatise The Fallen, he speaks about those who in persecution choose the way of “preserving oneself for the Lord for another day by removing oneself by means of a cautious withdrawal” —obviously referring to himself. And when the appointed hour for martyrdom finally came, St. Cyprian gave up his life for his Lord as the true and courageous shepherd and exemplar that he was. But at the time immediately following his flight, many in Carthage did not think his flight was justified. These saw their bishop flee when the persecuting wolf menaced the flock, and concluded that he was little more than a hireling (see Jn. 10:12). Even presbyters in Rome criticized him for his flight. Cyprian remained as the true and canonical bishop of his flock, ruling them along with his loyal presbyters. But something had changed. In the eyes of some at least, by fleeing persecution he had forfeited his moral right to lead. At the very least, this introduced tension between the leader and the led, and especially between the bishop (who fled the persecution) and the confessors (who stayed to face and endure the brunt of it). In happier times, the bishop would work in tandem with the confessors and presbyters. But now the tension introduced by Cyprian’s flight drove a wedge between him and some of his presbyteral/ confessing college, and such unity was no longer possible. That is why, I suggest, the confessors not only offered the names of the penitent lapsed for restoration, but also took it upon themselves to restore them. Cyprian did not completely deny that the confessors had a role in restoring the lapsed. He grudgingly allowed that they could add their voice. In his view, the confessors would present their petitions to the bishop regarding who should be restored, and the bishop would give his judgment (see Cyprian’s Letter 15). But for their part, the confessors did not view themselves as having a merely advisory role, or as simply offering petitions. They saw themselves as empowered by their sufferings to offer the Eucharist for the lapsed and actually restore them to communion. The point here is that the two views need not come into conflict, and in the happier days when bishop and confessor worked as a unity, they did not come into conflict. The question about which party has the final authority to restore the lapsed could only be asked in this way after the primordial unity between bishop and confessor had broken down. After the breakdown, each party had a different answer. The confessors approached the question from the stance of traditional practice; Cyprian from the stance of legal canonical right. Once again I stress that the separation between traditional practice and canonical right is an abnormal one, and when the bishop retains his moral right to rule, these dichotomies and questions cannot arise. They only arise because of the loss of episcopal moral authority. Traditionally, the bishop usually prevailed and carried the presbyters and confessors with him because of their respect for him as their liturgical leader and prophetic head. But it was just this respect that Cyprian had largely forfeited. Thus he had no recourse but to fall back upon the letter of the ecclesiastical law. I am not suggesting that such legal recourse was foreign to him or repugnant to him. I am suggesting that, foreign or not, it was inevitable given the loss of moral authority and consequent sundering of moral from canonical authority. He could no longer carry the day and work with the confessors as their respected leader. But he could insist on his episcopal rights. And the result was conflict and disunity—and on such a scale that the echoes of that conflict and collision persist to this day. That is why scholars like Brent Allen are still writing about it. It is true that the conflict was a local one, and the North African dust has long since settled. But the issues raised by it still remain. They are, in fact, at the heart of many disputes between bishops and priests today, and between bishops and laity. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: in these disputes, the priests and laity usually refer to their traditional status as members of the holy laos, and the bishops to their legal canonical right to rule. We can and must learn from the hard lessons and life of St. Cyprian: when moral authority is forfeited, unity is not possible, and it cannot be restored by thunderously asserting canonical legal right. For the canonical legal right to rule is not the issue: the issue is love and trust, and its fruits, mutual submission and unity. Ironically, the increasing demand for canonical submission apart from evidence of love and submission on the part of the one doing the demanding is the very thing that makes trust impossible. What is needed in all such disputes is not citations of Statutes, or anachronistic references in St. Ignatius of Antioch about the necessity of obedience to the bishop, or absurd labelling of opposition to episcopal authority as examples of “congregationalism” or “presbyterianism”. What is needed is the restoration of moral authority and trust, for it is only by such a restoration that the exercise of any authority in the Church can bear godly and lasting fruit. Some may deny the contemporary relevance of St. Cyprian, and say that the third century was a long time ago. Indeed it was long ago. That means it is late in the game not to have learned these lessons. Cyprian and his confessors have, I believe, long since been reconciled in the Kingdom. Through their prayers may all of us also find the way to reconciliation and peace, and bear fruit for the Lord in His Kingdom. From Orthodox Christians for Accountability Archpriest Lawrence R. Farley Langley, B.C., Canada

What is important to know about the church etiquette

In olden times there was a pious custom to go to the holy places. The wanderers reached Jerusalem to bow to its sanctuaries, those places where Christ was born, lived, died and resurrected. They were named pilgrims or palmers because they brought back home «palomas» (branches of palm trees) and their wide leaves seemed a wonder for our climate. Overtime, all travellers to the holy places, even those who travelled within the country, got the name «palmer». Pilgrimage was a special feat. The wandering connected with big difficulties and deprivations prepared for spiritual perception of a holy place the same way as fast prepares for feast, for example for Easter or for Christmas. The more difficult the pilgrimage was, with greater pleasure the pilgrim reached its destination, the more devout his prayer was and more sincerely he thanked God for His special mercy and grace. Pilgrimage is a service to God, spiritual work and purification of soul. Its purpose lies in entering the Kingdom of God as a unique sense of human life. The pilgrim fulfils the will of the Church to praise in prayers the deeds and feats of Saints, honour their images on icons, with reverence worship their holy relics. And first and foremost God is praised for everything, for by His grace they have reached this sanctity. But God needs reverence coming from person’s heart, from sincerity of his feelings. Pilgrimage is a wonderful opportunity for the unification of people (often coming from different parishes) in a common prayer, psalms, worship consecrated by God’s grace. Therefore, we recommend taking with you to the pilgrimage: — Icon of the Mother of God «Odigitria» (the Directress) or St. Nicholas, the Wonderworker — the patron of travelling people; — Prayer book and Psalter; — Book of spiritual songs. You may also take: — Bottles for holy water from healing wells; — Money for donations in churches and monasteries. The pilgrim should wear the cross. Before the pilgrimage one should receive written blessing of a parish priest or spiritual father. Praising God and His Most-Pure Mother for giving energy and favourable circumstances during pilgrimage, we wait for you in Kiev. On church piety Under church piety we understand the attitude towards the church, its sacred objects, icons, the attitude towards person as a participant of church services, as a Christian, as a temple of the Holy Spirit. Church piety is the attitude towards divine services, all objects that are connected with Christianity. Church piety is the system of rules, canons, traditions accepted by the Orthodox Church. Church piety begins with the attitude towards the church. If a person enters the church with reverence, full respect to its sanctuaries, such person will be warmly welcomed. And whether such person knows or does not know how to behave inside the church, he will not find himself there a stranger. However, it is important to know the church piety rules. Before entering First of all, before entering the church the orthodox people place upon themselves the sign of the cross and bow to the waist and look at its holy domes and crosses. Placing the sign of the cross on oneself should be done with reverence. By crossing himself the person shows the symbol of Christ’s sufferings undertaken for human sins. Therefore, it should be done with great reverence and attention. It is a sin to negligently place the sign of the cross on oneself. It has to be pointed out that according to the ancient tradition the altar in all orthodox churches is orientated towards the east and the entrance is located opposite the altar, from the west. There are also some exceptions, but they are caused by the necessity to fit into the architectural ensemble or have other reasons. There are churches directed from the south to the north, but this is an exception from the common Russian Orthodox rules. Inside the church Entering the church porch we once again cross ourselves, because inside the church there are already holy icons. There is no necessity to kiss every holy icon, but one should feel oneself as in the holy place. All conversations not related to the Church or church building should be stopped. Having passed the porch, we enter the church. Having made a few steps forwards in order to permit another people to come in, we turn to the altar, that is to the east, and cross ourselves and bow to the waist three times. Following this, you may proceed to the vestibule to the place called «the candle-chest» where candles, books, worship objects are sold. It is possible to greet friends, to address clergymen. But if you came into the church during the divine service, you have to wait until it finishes. Having bought candles, you may put them near icons, provided there is an easy access to candlesticks. If the church is full, it is better to pass candles and indicate the icon where you would like to put a candle. As a rule, there is a candlestick near every big icon. On the lectern, in the middle of the church, there is the icon of the feast or the saint celebrated that day (for example, Resurrection of Christ). First of all, if possible, come and kiss it. How to kiss the icon: cross yourself and bow to the waist two times, kiss the icon piously, and again, cross yourself and bow to the sanctuary. When the divine service begins, you should be on that place where it is convenient for you to stand and pray. One should not change places during the divine service. Prayer in the church You came into the church to pray, so do not hurry up. Let some time pass and peace in the soul to come, and you will be able to say to yourself with concentration those words, for the sake of which you came. May be in the beginning it is better to put candles near the icons of those saints, whom you want to pray to or you want to kiss. Then you will be in a spiritual mood that is easy and beneficial to pray in. Try not to disturb people and do not allow other to disturb you. Do not struggle for the place near icons; let other people have it. Almost all the time when the church is open, the divine service is being served and it is worth joining it in prayer. It is useful to come to the church for the sake of the divine service, for any our need, whether it is spiritual or corporal, finds its satisfaction in the Orthodox divine service. The Orthodox divine service covers all aspects of our life: our life in the world, our inner life, our joy and our sorrow. In the course of the divine service there is time for inner and common prayer. If time allows, never leave before the divine service is over. The hours spent in the church will be repaid to you hundredfold by spiritual and corporal good. Even if you do not understand the language of the divine service but you have deep internal necessity to join the divine service, to be together with all people and with the priest, stay in the church, be filled with prayerful mood that is inside the church. Even if you simply stand in the church in silence, by your respectful mood you become part of the common prayer. In case you do not understand the meaning of the prayers or your thoughts start to dissipate, try to read to yourself the Jesus prayer: «Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner». Appearance Appearance is of great importance for the pious Christian. It is very closely connected with the inner state. Piety begins inside, in the soul. Striving for purity of heart leads to tidy appearance. Humility and modesty result in modesty in clothes and behaviour. The silence of soul reveals itself in a silent conversation, limited gesticulation and mimicry, cautious speech. The churchgoer tries to keep within limits and maintain order in inner life and appearance. There is nothing random, unnecessary, and needless in behaviour or appearance of the Christian. Careful attitude to everything — to candles, memorisers and even money — distinguish pious parishioners. Loud conversations and excessive gesticulation are not acceptable in the church. And of course, portable phones and conversations over them are not acceptable at all. The appearance of the Orthodox Christian by which he can be recognised developed during centuries. This appearance has become a tradition and even an unwritten rule. Clothes Clothes should correspond to the sex. Women should wear a dress with long sleeves or wear a blouse (also with long sleeves) and a skirt covering legs so that nobody pays attention on them. Trousers, which are mainly men’s wear, are not acceptable. Men should wear trousers (but not shorts) and a shirt with long sleeves. Jeans are allowed, if they are not ragged and dirty. In general all clothes should be clean and tidy. On feasts they can be elegant and correspond to the colours of priesthood vestments and decoration of the church. Cleanness Cleanness of body is obligatory for everyone, and especially for those who receive the Holy Communion. Men’s hair should be accurately arranged and tied together (if it is long) not to touch sanctuaries. A scarf should cover women’s hair. The bright make-up is not welcomed. Strong perfume is not allowed. Donations Usually people donate money. But it is possible to offer things that are used in the church. It can be chalices and altar Gospel, candles and wine, fabric and oil for icon-lamps. It is possible to bring foodstuff for clergymen. Donations can be made for the church and for clergymen. In the latter case they are given in person. God accepts all donations as a sincere offering of faithful. Donations can be made as payment for prayer for relatives. Addressing Priesthood If you need to speak to the priest, you can ask clergymen whether the priest is available and where you can find him. If the priest is in the altar, you can ask a clergyman to call the priest. If the priest cannot come to you, you should not complain. Nobody and nothing should disturb the priest when he is preparing for the divine service. When you approach the priest, bow to the waist and ask him to bless you. For this purpose put the right palm over the left one, palms upward, and bow your head. The priest will cross you. When blessing the priest puts his fingers so that they represent the Greek letters Ic and Xc that mean Jesus Christ. Having received the blessing, kiss the hand of the priest as an invisible hand of Christ. Following that, you may ask your question. If the priest hurries up and your question is urgent, try to formulate it briefly, without details. If you want to talk to the priest or to confess, ask when he is available. It is better to agree beforehand. Address the priest in the following way: if you do not know the name of the priest, tell simply — «father» or «batyushka». This Russian form is polite, simple and pleasant to hear; if you know the name of the priest, it is possible to name him, for example, «Father Victor» « or «Father Alexander». The similar form of address is possible and for deacon, though it is not accepted to name him «batyushka». The very spread now address to priests «holy father» is not acceptable. Readers, sextons and singers address simply by names (by name and patronymic). Surnames are not used in the church. If you have to address the bishop, it is necessary to add «Vladyko» (All-Holy Sovereign) to his name, for example «Vladyko Sergius». You may also ask the bishop to bless you. When you address the bishop in a more official situation or in a letter, the following forms of address are used: «Your Grace! « (for bishops); «Your Eminence!» (for archbishops and metropolitans); «Your Beatitude!» (for the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church); «Your Holiness!» (for the Patriarch). Never think that the priest has no time to talk with you and that you must not bother him by your questions. The priest in the church is your pastor, he should answer your spiritual questions, help you. Therefore, do not hide under the false modesty the important issues that you cannot resolve without the priest. If it is a question that can be answered by any parishioner, do not approach the priest with it. Some questions can be asked to deacon and also to a sexton or reader. It is more appropriate to ask the priest or pastor the questions related to confession, repentance or personal issues. Wherever you are, it is appropriate to show you respect to a cleric. For this purpose it is enough to bow to him. In this way you show respect to the holy order and the Prototype, that is Christ. It is not necessary to ask the priest for blessing, if you met him on the street. But if you wish so, you may do it. What is important to know about monastic etiquette The love of the Orthodox people to the monasteries is well known. Today the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has more than 120 monasteries. And each of them, except monks, has pilgrims, workers, who come to strengthen their faith, piety, to work unto the glory of God reconstructing or improving conditions in the monastery. In monastery the discipline is more severe than in parish. Although mistakes of the newcomers are usually forgiven and covered by love, it is desirable to go to the monastery already knowing basic monastic rules. Spiritual and administrative structure of the monastery Archimandrite or ruling archbishop (if the monastery is under the direct control of the Holy Synod) governs the monastery. However, monastery’s superior manages the monastery (it can be an archimandrite, a hegumen, a priestmonk). In ancient times he was referred to as the builder or hegumen (abbot). The abbess manages the nunnery. Monastic life requires accuracy and efficiency (and monasticism is a spiritual way so verified and polished by centuries that it is possible to name it academic). That is why in the monastery everyone carries out certain duties. The ecclesiastical superintendent is the superior’s first assistant and deputy. He supervises all services and compliance with the rules of the monastery. Accommodation of pilgrims falls under his tasks. The important role in the monastery belongs to the spiritual Father, who spiritually feeds the brethren. And it is not necessarily should be an old man (both from age and spiritual talents points of view). Experienced brethren is chosen for the following positions: treasurer (who is in charge of keeping and distribution with the superior’s blessing of donations), sacristan (who is in charge of beauty of the church, vestment, worship items, safeguarding service books), housekeeper (who is in charge of daily life of the monastery, knows the duties of workers who came to help), cellarer (who is in charge of foodstuff), hotelkeeper (who is in charge of accommodation of visitors) and others. In nunneries these duties are carried out by nuns, except for the spiritual father, who is appointed by the archbishop from experienced and usually elderly monks. How to address monks In order to address correctly the monk (the nun), it is important to know that in monasteries and nunneries there are laybrothers and laysisters (novice), cassockmonks (cassocknuns), mantlemonks (mantlenuns), schemamonks (schemanuns). In the monastery the part of brethren has sacerdotal orders (they are deacons, priests). The form of address in monasteries and nunneries is as follows. In the monastery It is possible to address the superior indicating his position («Father Superior, bless me») or using his name («Father Nikon, bless me»), or simply «batyushka» (rarely used). Officially: «Your Very Reverend Father» (if superior is an archimandrite or a hegumen) «Reverend Father» (if superior is a priestmonk). In third person: «Father Superior», «Father Gabriel». We address the superintendent indicating his position («Father Superintendent»), or add his name («Father Pavel»), «batyushka». In third person: «Father Superintendent» («ask Father Superintendent») or «Father... (Name)». It is possible to address to spiritual father using his name («Father John») or simply «batyushka». In third person: «what spiritual father will advise», «what Father John will tell». If a housekeeper, a sacristan, a treasurer and a cellarer have sacerdotal orders, it is possible to address them «batyushka» and ask for blessing. If they are not ordained to priesthood but took monastic vows, people address: «Father Housekeeper», «Father Treasurer». It is possible to address a priestmonk, a hegumen, an archimandrite: «Father... (name)», «batyushka». The monk, who took monastic vows, can be addressed «father», novice — «brother» (if novice is an elderly person — «father»). Addressing schemamonks, if order is used, the prefix «sche» is added — for example: «I ask for your prayers, father schearchimandrite». In the nunnery The abbess, in contrast to nuns, wears the golden pectoral cross and has the right to bless. Therefore, people ask for blessing addressing in the following way: «Mother Abbess»; or using her name: «Mother Barbara», «Mother Nicholas» or simply «mother». (In the nunnery the word «mother» is used only in relation to the Abbess. Therefore, if somebody says: «So Mother thinks, they mean the Abbess.) How to address nuns: «Mother Eulampia», «Mother Seraphima», but in some situations it is possible to simply say «mother». You can address a novice: «sister» (if novice is an elderly person, it is possible to address «mother»). There is no theological reason to use the word «mother» in addressing women working in kitchen, in sewing workshop etc., as it happens in some parishes today. In the world it is accepted to address only the wife of the priest with the word «mother». Monastic rules Monastery is a special world. Time is needed to learn the rules of monastic life. Our article is intended for laymen. So we shall speak about the most important things that should be observed during pilgrimage to monastery. Having arrived to the monastery as pilgrims or workers, please notice that in the monastery blessing is asked for everything and afterwards is strictly followed. It is not possible to leave the monastery without blessing. Please leave outside the monastery all sinful habits and predilections (wine, tobacco, foul language etc.). Conversations should be of spiritual nature, no talks about worldly life, and no instructions to each other. Only two words — «forgive» and «bless» — are in use. No grumbling about food, clothes, accommodations. No visits to other cells, except when instructed by the superior. While entering the cell utter: «By the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us» (in the nunnery: «by the prayers of our Holy Mothers...»). Do not enter the cell until you hear the answer from inside: «Amen». Avoid laughing, jokes, and familiar forms of address. While fulfilling your duties try to spare the person working next to you, covering mistakes in his work by love. If people meet each other, they bow to each other and say: «Save yourself, brother (sister)»; and answer: «Save me, My Lord». You do not shake hands. Hierarchy is observed during the meal. The prayer pronounced by the person in charge of the meal is answered by the word «Amen». Around the table everybody keeps silence and listens to what is being read. Never be late for the divine service, unless you are busy with your duties. The insults that occur at common duties should be taken with humility, for in this way experience in spiritual life and in love towards brethren is gained. Taken from the book «What is important to know about the church etiquette»