Priestly Service

The Spirituality of the Priest

The Spirituality of the Priest

We would like to speak in this field about a few points, including:

• The spiritual style of the priest.
• His lack of love for money.
• The priest between gentleness and anger.
• The priest and prayer.

The Spiritual Style:

1. The style of the priest should be a spiritual style, just as his goals are spiritual, and his means are also spiritual.
   Because there are many priests whose service is merely activity. One of them is like a flame of activity and movement, but without spirit.
   Some have a service that is merely social service, some are engrossed in architectural service, and some have a service that is only words.
   But the important thing is that his service be spiritual,
   even in all the previous activities…
   And in teaching, he should have a spiritual style.
2. In theological dialogue, his style must also be spiritual.
   He should not be harsh in his discussion, nor use insults, mockery, or sarcasm toward the mentality of others. Rather, he should care about objective points with the strength of evidence and logic, and with scriptural and logical proof. Because a sarcastic style cannot win over the one with whom he is dialoguing.
   Among the examples of noble spiritual dialogue was the style of Saint Didymus the Blind,
   whose method was to win over the one he dialogued with, not to defeat him.
   With this strong and polite style, he was able to attract many pagan philosophers to the Christian faith, and he deserved that Saint Athanasius the Apostolic appoint him director of the theological school in Alexandria.
3. The priest’s method in pastoral visitation should be a spiritual method.
   So that it is a spiritual visitation, not merely a social visit or a personal relationship. Rather, his visit to any family or individual should be a spiritual visit, with spiritual goals and spiritual means, and it should result in a spiritual outcome for the benefit of those he visits.
4. Likewise, his style should be spiritual in confession as well.
   The confession session should not be a session of affection and exchange of courteous and loving phrases. Rather, the confessor should feel that he is before God in the presence of the priest, or before the priest in the presence of God.
   The repentant confesses before God in the hearing of the priest,
   in a serious, balanced spiritual session that begins with prayer and ends with the prayer of absolution, in which the confessor feels that he receives absolution from God through the mouth of the priest.
   We have devoted a special section to confession.
5. In caring for the poor, the priest’s style should be spiritual.
   He should not be concerned with helping the poor materially while wounding their feelings, or humiliating them, or dealing with them in a manner of authority and rebuke.
   Nor should he deal with them constantly with a style of suspicion, casting doubt on the truthfulness of everything they say, accusing them of lying and deceit, or making them wait a long time without reason, feeling neglect, disregard, or indifference.
   The poor person may take from him and leave resentful because of bad treatment.
6. Likewise, in sermons, the priest should be characterized by spirituality.
   They should not be merely thought, or merely information that addresses the mind without addressing the spirit.
   The listener should not feel that he is listening to a scholar or thinker, but to a spiritual father.
   The spiritual priest, even in doctrines and theology, speaks of them in a spiritual style. An example of this is Saint Athanasius the Apostolic in his book On the Incarnation of the Word. The book is originally a theological book, but at the same time you feel that it is a spiritual book that addresses your spirit, and at the same time it is biblical teaching.
7. The priest’s evaluation of his service should be a spiritual evaluation.
   Because many priests evaluate their service by non-spiritual standards such as building and construction, for example, while the poor have no share in his service, which leads some of them to deviation or apostasy, and yet he is in great joy over what he has built and constructed.
   We do not forbid care for construction, but not on the basis of neglecting care for the poor, about whom the Lord said: “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me” (Matthew 25:40).
   A priest may evaluate his service by the amount of information he has presented in his sermons, even if it does not change their lives at all, but is merely accumulations on their intellectual harvest.
   There is also a priest who makes order in the church the most important thing he is keen on, even if he loses many values for the sake of order.
   For the sake of order he rebukes a lot, expels, insults, and loses many people while commanding and forbidding. Sometimes he even prevents or stops the service under the pretext that Sunday School children make noise and disturbance in the church. In his view, order is the most important thing. There is, of course, no objection to order, but with wisdom, so that we do not lose everything because of it.
   There is a priest whose activity increases and whose spirituality decreases, and there is no balance between activity and spirituality. It is a tragedy to gain order and lose oneself and lose people, because he did not properly arrange the balance between the goal and the means.

The Credibility of the Priest

The credibility of the priest is part of his spirituality.
One of the results of his credibility is that people trust him and consider his word to be the whole truth, so they rely on him with reassurance.
Credibility has many branches, as it enters into all the dealings of the priest.

There is credibility in every piece of news he says, so that it is all truth. Therefore, it is not fitting for the priestly father to transmit news based on rumors that may not be true, or to transmit from a person whose speech may not be sound.
Likewise, the priest should be precise in every word. He should not exaggerate in what he says, nor use a word that carries two meanings, lest the listener understand one meaning while the priest intends the other.

Just as there is credibility in his news, so there is credibility in his promises.
He should not promise something he cannot carry out, nor promise a gift that is not within his power to give, nor promise an appointment and then fail to keep it, nor be fanciful in his promises. All this causes his promises to lose their credibility.

There is also the credibility of the priest in his teaching.
He should not answer a question quickly without being sure of his answer, nor attribute a saying to a saint unless he is certain of attributing it to him, while confident of the correctness of the saying. He should not exaggerate his reliance on his memory; and if he is not certain, he should mention that as well, saying, for example: “As far as I think, the matter is like this, but I am not sure.”
He should not claim knowledge of matters he has not studied, for his lack of knowledge will inevitably be exposed.

There are those who treat elders as equals, without keeping in mind the difference in age, position, type of kinship, or difference in work.
There are others who go further, treating elders as if they are lesser than them, thus losing propriety in speech and behavior, and they may deal in this way even with their father at home.
In every conversation with someone older than you, you must observe propriety of speech, humility in dealing, and respect for elders. The style with which you speak to someone at your level or below should not be used with someone older than you.
A person may reach a degree of pride in which he feels that there is no one greater than him.

The Priest and Money

One of the conditions of the priest is that he not be a lover of money, nor a lover of the greater portion, nor greedy for shameful gain.
This is stated in the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim 3:3) and the Epistle to Titus (Titus 1:7).
Even more, he should be ascetic, far from luxury, obeying the word of the Lord:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Matthew 6:19).
If the Lord said this to the multitudes of believers, it applies to priests all the more, for they are supposed to be an example in every virtue.

The Scripture teaches us that when the Lord sent His disciples, He said to them:
“Provide neither gold nor silver” (Matthew 10:9).
He also said: “Nor copper in your money belts.” The copper coin was the cheapest and was considered small change in their days. He also said to His disciples: “Carry neither a money bag” (Luke 10:4). Thus He assumed in them complete detachment from money and wealth.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself lived on earth poor.
He owned nothing on earth, He who is the owner of heaven and earth. Everything that people put in the box, He commanded to be distributed to the poor. When He said to Judas at the Last Supper, “What you do, do quickly,” the disciples thought that He said to him, “Buy those things we need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor,” because the box was with Judas (John 13:27–29).
This is what troubled Judas: the principle of the empty box—everything put into it was distributed immediately to the poor.

The disciples of the Lord Jesus were also poor.
Mark the Evangelist, when he came to Egypt, owned nothing, and his shoes were torn from walking on the road.
When Saints Peter and John passed by the gate of the temple where a lame man sat begging, “he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them” (Acts 3:5).
Peter said to him, “Silver and gold I do not have” (Acts 3:6), and continued, “But what I do have I give you,” and took him by the hand and said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” So he leaped up, stood, and walked (Acts 3:6, 8).

Commenting on this story, it was said that a famous philosopher visited St. Peter’s Cathedral with all its wealth and marvelous decorations, and it was said to him: “The time has passed when Peter said, ‘Silver and gold I do not have.’” The philosopher replied: “Yes, and the time has also passed when Peter said to the lame man, ‘Rise up and walk,’ and he rose.”

In Capernaum, when Peter was asked, “Does your Teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” (Matthew 17:24), the Lord had nothing to pay with, so He said to Peter: “Go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for Me and you” (Matthew 17:27).

The disciples also owned nothing. Thus Saint Paul said:
“As poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things” (2 Corinthians 6:10).
How were the apostles poor, when it was said at the beginning of the apostolic era: “All who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:34–35)?
Yes, that was the place of the money—at the apostles’ feet, not in their pockets. And what did the apostles do? “They distributed to each as anyone had need.” Therefore, “nor was there anyone among them who lacked” (Acts 4:35, 34). And the apostles remained poor despite all this, fulfilling the saying of Paul: “As poor, yet making many rich.”

Let the clergy, then, take a lesson from the apostles in their relationship with money.
It is not permissible for the priest to accumulate money.
Nor is it permissible for him to have an aristocratic appearance.

When the French Revolution took place and seized the wealth of the royal family, princes, nobles, and feudal lords, the church in France at that time owned one-fifth of the state’s properties. When the communist revolution took place in Russia, wealth prevailed in the Tsardom and in the church. Even the Gospels were covered with gold and precious stones, as were the frames of icons and the crosses, and some of this still remains displayed in the halls of the Kremlin in Moscow.

The dignity of the priesthood lies in its spirituality, not in its appearance.
In the past, senior clergy wore golden crosses and icons on their chests and held golden crosses in their hands, and their chests might be adorned with a gold chain at the end of which was a gold watch. Now all this has gone and passed away.

The wealth of the priest may be a subject of criticism or condemnation by his people, and it also provokes the poor who do not possess the necessary sustenance.

Also, the priest who does not love money does not take money in exchange for his prayers, nor does he sell the holy sacraments for money.
He does not take money in his visits to the homes of the believers, because he goes to them to visit and reassure them and their spirituality, not to take money from them. He goes to them with the style of a shepherd, not a collector.
His collecting of money in this way diminishes his pastoral value, reverses the purpose of the visit, and makes him flattering to the rich and neglectful of the poor.

It is not permissible for the priest to take a fee for baptism.
I issued an order regarding this to all the churches of Cairo years ago: we pursue every child to baptize him. Personally, whenever I see a mother carrying an infant, I ask her whether this child has been baptized or not, because baptism is necessary for the salvation of the child according to the words of the Lord Jesus with Nicodemus (John 3:5), and according to the Lord’s saying: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Is it right, then, for baptism to turn into a source of income? God forbid.

O priestly father, if someone wishes to give you something when you baptize his child, excuse yourself from accepting it. If he insists and persists, tell him that it is not in this occasion.
We rejoice in the baptism of children for their becoming children of God, their joining the membership of the church, and the beginning of their enjoyment of the holy sacraments. But it is not permissible that the joy be in money given by the family of the baptized child.
If the family of the child wishes to present something to God in their joy at the baptism of their child, not as a price for his baptism, let it be by placing it in the church box, not in the hand of the priest, and not for him.

In everything the priestly father performs of church sacraments and liturgical prayers, let him remember the Lord’s saying to His disciples:
“Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8).
The church sacraments are greater than to be valued by money. They are necessary for all, and we must present them to everyone, each according to his need. The priest is a servant of the sacraments, not a seller of the sacraments.

Likewise, in visiting the sick, it is not permissible for the priest to take money.
He visits the sick out of love for God, considering him one of his children. He loves to reassure him and pray for him so that God may grant him health and well-being. Money corrupts the nature and purpose of the visit, whether the visit is in the hospital, or the priest prays for him the prayer of the anointing of the sick at home, or even a short prayer with anointing with oil.

Rather, the priestly father may visit the sick, attend to him, and present him with a gift, whether a religious gift such as a prayer book or a cross, or a social gift such as a bouquet of flowers expressing his feeling, or a gift of sweets distributed to the visitors of the sick from his acquaintances and friends.
Thus the priestly father becomes accustomed to giving, according to the Lord’s saying:
“It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
He is the father who shares with his children their problems and needs. He may know that illness has cost this son or his family money beyond their ability, so he contributes with them in an appropriate way to help with treatment expenses.

Another point I would like to mention concerns funerals.
The family of the deceased needs someone to console them, not someone to take from them.
Often death has been preceded by illness that exhausted all they had, and perhaps they incurred debts because of it. Added to this are the costs of the coffin, the casket, and burial. If the priesthood burdens them with other financial demands, this is beyond their capacity.

I admire a friend who was a colleague with me in service before monasticism. He was very sensitive toward these matters. The father of a friend of ours in Sunday School died. All those who went to the condolence limited themselves to a silent sitting, then the phrase “May you live,” and then they left. But he did not leave like that; rather, he took the colleague, the son of the deceased, aside, handed him an envelope, and said to him: I know how much these matters cost, and I have experienced them myself. Consider me a brother to you who shares with you what you are going through.

There are excuses presented by some priestly fathers—not all of them, of course—regarding the issue of collecting money, among which we mention:

1. That he does not collect for himself, but for his family and children. What will these do after him? Therefore, he must collect enough for them, whether in terms of housing, living needs, school expenses, or preparing daughters.
2. The Scripture says: “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7).
3. The Scripture also says: “Those who minister at the altar eat from the altar,” “those who serve the holy things eat of the things of the temple,” “those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:13–14).
4. It is assumed that we accustom people to give in the church, because it is a divine commandment to give tithes, firstfruits, and vows, and as children of the church they should care for all its needs.

There are other reasons besides these that some present.
We hope that time will allow us to discuss them all, God willing.

For better translation support, please contact the center.