Canons, Customs, Superstitions: The Perception of Orthodox Church Norms and Practices by Clergy and Parishioners of the Mordovia Metropolis of Russian Orthodox Church

Abstract

Introduction. The canonical norms, customs and superstitions that regulate common church practices are not always clearly differentiated in religious consciousness. As a result, the substitution of superstitions for canonical norms and customs leads to a distortion of the normative foundations of religious practices. The purpose of this study is to identify the level of subjective and objective knowledge of clergy and parishioners about normative and non-normative religious practices based on the results of the authors’ sociological research. Materials and Methods. The empirical base is the data of a sociological study conducted in October-November 2022 among the clergy and parishioners of the Mordovia Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Church with interactive questionnaire. A non-probabilistic approach to sampling was used; respondents were recruited through own networks of researchers. The use of comparative method made it possible to identify differences in the perception of canons, customs and superstitions by two groups of respondents. Within the framework of pilot study, the author’s sociological tools and methods for result processing were tested. Since parishioners and especially clergy are a hard-to-reach group of respondents, a non-probability approach was used to form the sample. This entailed a number of limitations of the study. Results. Subjective assessments of the level of religious literacy were analyzed, including the knowledge about canons, customs and superstitions. Not only the clergy, but also parishioners demonstrated a comparatively high level of awareness of the normative foundations of religious practices, although some parishioners have an inflated self-esteem. General ideas about the concepts of normative and non-normative were revealed, none of the respondents had any objections to the definition of the concepts of “canon”, “custom”, “superstition”. However, discrepancies were found regarding the assessment of some practices. Discussion and Conclusion. Four factors were identified, in which variables are grouped, demonstrating the different nature of respondents’ knowledge about canons, customs and superstitions: knowledge to distinguish customs and canons from superstitions; knowledge of the customs relating to events and situations; knowledge of the canons; knowledge of the canons relating to special religious knowledge, including those regulating the life of clergy. The article will be useful to researchers of religious practices and religious consciousness, as well as lecturers of the theological educational institutions.