On Priesthood #

What is the sacrament of priesthood? #

Our priesthood is the service of that divine mission about which Christ spoke to His chosen disciples for service, saying: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21-23). And again: “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). And further: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), or: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20). And again: “Do business till I come” (Luke 19:13).

Saint John Chrysostom writes, “The priesthood is more honorable and greater in authority than even kingship; and let not the purple robe, or the diadem, or golden garments be mentioned to me. These are but shadows and of less worth than spring flowers… But if you wish to see the difference between a priest and a king, then examine the powers given to each, and you will see the priest sitting higher than the king. Though the royal throne may seem glorious because of its adornment with precious stones and gold, nevertheless, it governs only earthly matters and has no authority beyond that. The throne of the priesthood, however, is established in heaven, as stated by the Heavenly King Himself: ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.’ What honor could compare to this? The judgment begins on earth, and heaven follows the decision. The judge sits on earth, and the Master follows the servant. What the priest decides, that God affirms in heaven. The priest stands between God and humanity, bringing down grace from above and offering prayers from below, reconciling the angered God with our nature and rescuing us from His wrath” (Margarit, Homily 6, On King Uzziah, p. 213).

Thus, as Metropolitan Gabriel of Philadelphia writes, “The priesthood is necessary because, without this sacrament, the Church cannot fulfill its functions… The priesthood in the world is like the soul in the body and the sun among the things born under the moon and the perishable” (his book, p. 41).

The apostolic man, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, writes about this, saying: “Every priestly authority, according to our pious tradition, is a complete ordering of the sacred offices under its charge and the overall establishment of matters related to the priesthood. Our priestly authority is said to be and indeed is the arrangement that encompasses all the sacred mysteries, through which the divine priest receives the communion of all the most sacred mysteries, being named after the one who carries out the priesthood. Just as the one pronouncing the priestly words pronounces the arrangement and distribution of all the sacred mysteries together, so too the one named a priest signifies a man who is God-inspired and divine, skillful in every sacred knowledge, in whom the entire priestly ministry is completed and recognized… The essence of our priesthood is the divinely transmitted words. By ‘divine words’ we mean those that have been transmitted to us by our God-inspired sacred ministers in the divinely written and theological books (here referring to the Scriptures), and also those things that, through a spiritual and nearly celestial teaching, passed from mind to mind, through a medium that, although physical, is yet more spiritual than mere written words (such as the rites of the Church’s sacraments), our instructors have learned from these sacred men (meaning the apostles)” (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, sections 3 and 4).

Therefore, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in its second canon, forbade the appointment of those who do not understand how to interpret the Psalms and other Divine Scriptures as bishops.

How is Priesthood Administered? #

Priesthood is conferred through the laying on of hands by a bishop. According to the Small Catechism, one who has not been ordained to the priesthood cannot be a minister of the Church’s sacraments, except in certain exceptional cases (On the Sacrament of Priesthood, p. 35). Similarly, the Great Catechism asserts that no one can administer the sacraments except those consecrated by bishops who have received authority from the Lord God through the laying on of hands by the successors of the apostles (On the Seven Sacraments, ch. 72).

Simeon of Thessalonica writes that ordination imparts to individuals the authority and power of the Creator. Without this, nothing in existence could be sustained. Christ Himself came to elevate us to a blessed life, and upon His ascension, He granted us this power through the institution of the priesthood. It is through this priesthood that all sacred rites are now performed among us, and without a priest, there can be no sanctity. In the beginning, God appointed us as stewards of visible creation, and now He has appointed us as stewards of higher blessings through the priesthood. David speaks of this when he says, “You have set them as princes over all the earth” (Psalm 45:16), for He has entrusted to us the keys of heaven (Simeon of Thessalonica, Part 1, ch. 5, p. 13).

Furthermore, he states: “Having received the blessing and breath of life from those divine hands and lips, the ordination and grace, when we are consecrated, we receive grace through those sanctified by Him (Christ) in succession, and the source of grace for us is Christ, who indeed works all things in all” (ibid., ch. 46, p. 92).

What is the difference in the degrees of Priesthood? #

The apostolic man, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, writes: “The most sacred of all priestly services holds the first God-seeing power, which is to purify those who are not yet perfected; the middle power is to enlighten those who have been purified through sacred teaching; and the final, highest power, which encompasses the previous two, is to perfect those who have already been initiated into the mysteries. The order of priests, through their first power, purifies the imperfect through instruction; with the middle power, they enlighten the purified; and with the last and highest power, they perfect the priests themselves, who have partaken in the divine light through the mystical acts of knowledge… Now, it has been shown that the order of hierarchs has the power to perfect, and actually performs this; the order of priests has the power to enlighten and does so in actuality; while the deacons have the power to purify and separate. However, though the order of hierarchs does not only perfect but can also enlighten and purify, the lower orders cannot assume the roles of the higher ones, and therefore should not aspire to such pride. The higher and more divine powers, besides their own roles, also include in their fullness the divine knowledge of the lower orders. Nonetheless… our priesthood, as an image of divine actions, divides itself into various orders and powers, clearly demonstrating that the divine actions remain steadfast and unconfused in all things” (On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, paragraphs 3 and 7).

Similarly, the blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, says: “In the Church, there is an order of completion, adorned by those who stand before it: neither is it fitting for one to be more or less than what the grace of these three forms represents in the Church—purification, enlightenment, and completion. These three actions are inherited by the ranks: deacons purify through the instruction of teaching; priests enlighten through baptism; and bishops ordain and complete the sacred orders, which is through the laying on of hands. Do you see the ranks corresponding to the actions, neither more nor less, as I have said, among those who stand before?” (Commentary on the 95th Gospel of Luke).

Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica says: “Two ordinations are performed outside the altar: that of the reader and the subdeacon. There are also other hand-layings for certain duties, such as for the exorcist or candle-bearer, which were performed before the ordination to reader but have now mostly ceased, although they were practiced in Thessalonica not long ago and are described in ancient canons. Proper ordinations, however, are performed within the altar and at the most sacred table, and there are three of these, which Saint Dionysius also mentions—those of the deacon, priest, and bishop” (Part 1, ch. 124, p. 107). He also states: “There are different gifts of the Spirit; to one is given this, to another that gift. But all these work by the same Spirit (1 Cor., 12:11), as it is written: God has placed in the Church first apostles, second prophets (1 Cor., 12:28), and so on. Therefore, in the Church, there is a reader for the people, a deacon as a servant,… a priest, who is also called a celebrant, as he can perform services but cannot confer the authority to do so. There is also the hierarch, who has the authority to perform all sacred and divine acts and to confer the right to perform them upon others… But priests do not have this grace; they can only celebrate the liturgy and baptize, and they do this not without the power and ordination of the bishop” (Response to the Question of a Certain Bishop on the Difference Between a Bishop and a Priest, Part 2, p. 162).

What is the Meaning of the 39th Rule of the Holy Apostles, Which States: Without the Will of Their Bishop, Neither Presbyters Nor Deacons Should Do Anything, for They Have Been Entrusted with the People of the Lord? #

The commentators on the sacred canons, Zonaras and Aristen, relate the definition of this rule primarily to the hearing of confessions, for the right to hear confessions is granted to the presbyter both at the time of ordination and afterward, but sometimes this right is revoked, as if taken back. However, the main point for them is that in doubtful matters concerning confessions, presbyters should always refer to the bishop, as it is written in the preface to the Nomocanon: “It is fitting for spiritual fathers to know this: that from spiritual and canonical discernment, grievous and doubtful sins for the correction of the penitent should be referred to the bishops and to those more perfect and wise. In some cases, it is not shameful to consult with those more knowledgeable, and the sins of priests and protodeacons, which lead to excommunication, should be judged by bishops, so that the spiritual father does not dare to absolve them.”

Thus, if even now, after the extensive writing of rules by holy councils and holy fathers, which are contained in our Kormchaya (Pidalion) and Nomocanons, spiritual fathers encounter uncertainties, how much more so must this have been the case in apostolic times, when there were no written rules, and everything was judged only by sound reason in accordance with the Gospel and apostolic teaching. It is clear that in such times, presbyters, especially those who were less experienced, would have faced uncertainties in resolving almost any legal transgression, which is why the 39th rule of the holy apostles commanded them not to resolve anything without the will of the bishop. But with the establishment of church canons, the necessity for the bishop’s will became less frequent. For those fully versed in the canons of the Church, the bishop’s will was required only when someone from the clergy needed to be prohibited from their duties due to their legal transgressions. However, when we examine the content of the rule, where deacons are mentioned—who are never entrusted with the right of confession—we cannot assert that this rule concerns only the right of confession. Here, we can consider two other aspects of the bishop’s will:

First, whatever appointment the bishop gives to a presbyter or deacon at their ordination, that is what they should fulfill, and nothing more. Second, presbyters and deacons should always be obedient to the bishop and fulfill whatever he commands them to do.

However, this obedience to their will should be limited if the bishop himself is not obedient to the will of God, as expressed in the Holy Gospel and sacred canons. For the venerable Theodore the Studite says: “Authority is given to leaders not to transgress the rules, but rather to adhere to what has been established, follow what has been handed down, and bind and loose not thoughtlessly, but as seems right according to the truth, canon, and rule of the highest law” (Nomocanon, towards the end of the book). And the blessed Symeon of Thessalonica, describing the installation of a patriarch, says: “He (in the altar) pronounces the same confession that all those elected to the episcopate pronounce, except for submission to the patriarch; for when the one being consecrated is himself a patriarch, to whom will he submit? Except only to the church canons, which he promises to observe” (Part 1, Chapter 199, p. 295).

However, when Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, violated the sacred canons himself and unjustly prohibited many clergy for their Orthodox beliefs, the Third Ecumenical Council issued the following decree: “If any of those belonging to the clergy, in any city or village, have been prohibited from performing sacred duties by Nestorius and his associates for their Orthodox beliefs, we decree that they should be restored to their rank. Generally, we command all clergy who are of one mind (or who will become of one mind now or in the future, at any time) with the Orthodox and Ecumenical Council not to submit in any way to those bishops who have fallen away or are falling away” (Council Acts, vol. 7, p. 93). This is also supported by the First-Second or Quinisext Council, which strictly prohibits clergy from separating from their bishops, and bishops from their metropolitans, and metropolitans from their patriarchs, although it stipulates: “This is defined and confirmed for those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, separate from their leaders, cause schisms, and break the unity of the Church. For those who separate from communion with their leader because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers, that is, when he openly preaches heresy and teaches it publicly in the church—such persons, if they protect themselves from communion with the said bishop before a synodical judgment, are not only not subject to the penalties prescribed by the rules, but are worthy of honor befitting the Orthodox. For they have condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and false teachers, and have not torn the unity of the Church through schism, but have striven to protect the Church from schisms and divisions” (Complete Translations of Rule 15: Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 40: Matthew the Corrector’s composition, Chapter 12: Joseph of Volokolamsk’s Illuminator, Word 12).

And Theodore Valsamon, in his explanation of this rule, says: “The rule rightly states that those who separate from those teaching heretical doctrines and those who are evidently heretical, even before a synodical judgment, deserve praise. For if heresy is secretly and subtly propagated by the primate so that he hesitates, then no one should separate from him before judgment; for it is possible that before the final decision, he may return to Orthodoxy and abandon the heresy. Note this, as it may be useful against those who claim that we wrongly separated from the See of ancient Rome before those associated with it were condemned as heretical. Thus, the present rule does not punish those who separate due to doctrinal fault, and the 31st apostolic rule leaves unpunished those who accuse their bishops of obvious wrongdoing and separate from them (his interpretation of the said rule).

Is the Priesthood Nullified by the Unworthiness of Sacred Persons? #

The sacrament of the priesthood is never nullified, and if it is conferred upon someone through the proper succession of Christ-bestowed ordination, it remains with them forever. The Greater Catechism, discussing the effects of the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and priesthood, states as follows: “They imprint and seal the soul with a mark that is indelible and unchangeable for eternity… The marks of these three holy sacraments distinguish those who have been marked or sealed from other people who do not bear such marks on themselves. Just as the baptized and those anointed with holy chrism are distinguished from all unbelievers, so too are those ordained distinguished as holy from the lay faithful, and this mark remains on the soul forever, both on earth and in heaven. Therefore, it is neither proper nor permissible to repeat these sacraments, but they are to be given only once” (Chapter 72, On the Seven Sacraments).

In response to previous questions from a certain bishop: “Is the Eucharist, baptism, and everything performed by an unworthy cleric valid or not? Does an unworthily ordained person receive grace or not, and are the sacraments he performs valid? Can an unworthy person who has been ordained and entered into the spiritual rank, especially without authorization, absolve sins, and is his absolution valid, or is this something that even a simple monk can do, akin to a spiritual person? If someone, without being unworthy, has appointed himself as a priest or bishop and ordains both worthy and unworthy people, raising them to the spiritual rank, and they all perform sacred rites—is what they do pleasing to God?” Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica responded in a manner fitting to these questions, saying: “In all these matters, the thought is one, and we will answer all together, to the best of our ability, based on the tradition received from the Fathers. A bishop, priest, deacon, occupying a ministerial rank in the spiritual order, and any other cleric, having been lawfully ordained, is a true servant of God, a helper in the salvation of people, another angel of God, a conduit of sanctification, filled with divine light and grace, and he will receive great reward from God in the hereafter, especially if he is diligent in his ministry and not inclined to laziness and negligence, for laziness is a sign of irreverence. However, if he has lawfully received the right to perform sacred duties, let him perform them: it is beneficial for him and for all, both the living and the dead, and this is what the theologian Basil says. But even in an unworthy person, if he has been ordained—a bishop, priest, cleric, or server of church rites—the grace of ordination works for the salvation of those who approach him, and each receives sanctification from him, and none remain without it. Those ordained by them are truly ordained; those absolved of sins or bound are truly absolved or bound; and all the sacraments they perform are true sacraments, for they are performed not by man but by grace through this instrument. Woe to this instrument if it performs not according to the intention of the one who acts through it! Woe to the negligent sacred minister! If in earthly and human matters, one who assumes what is not given to him and of which he is unworthy deserves punishment like a thief, robber, insolent person, usurper, and despiser of that which is above his rank, then how much more will one who shows disrespect for divine and heavenly matters, and especially for the works of God Himself, be condemned? If only the unworthy communicant is guilty of judgment, how much more the unworthy minister of sacred duties! We say this about those who have received ordination: they are all unworthy of it, whether they sin before or after it. And if they manage to repent and attain salvation, they would themselves cease to perform the most sacred actions of the priesthood and, in confession and sorrow, would seek to incline God towards them in mercy. In repentance, their first act should be to cease from sacred ministry. However, if some, by God’s permission, allow themselves such boldness that they take on the priesthood impiously and without faith (for this is unbelief), without being ordained, and perform the works of the priesthood, then there are no words to express the severity of the condemnation awaiting such a person. Their actions are worse than those of the most impious, and they are characteristic only of demons, who transform themselves into angels of light without being such and mimic the works of God while being godless and opposing God. Such people will therefore be subjected to the greatest and most inexpressible punishment for thus blaspheming against divine matters. Their words and deeds are not divine: since they do not have the grace of ordination, they will be punished for deceiving those they baptized or ordained, for they themselves are neither ordained nor baptized. He who has nothing gives nothing, and no one receives anything from one who has nothing, even if they think that the person has something. Thus, the deceived one, thinking that he is baptized or ordained, has neither, and the deceiver is responsible for his destruction. A man can do nothing unless he receives power from God. ‘Without Me,’ it is said, ‘you can do nothing’ (John 15:5). But the one who performs the spiritual sacred ministry of the liturgy without the bishop’s prescription and command is, by his sin, close to one who ministers without ordination: for binding and loosing are the work of bishops alone, and various rules speak of this. And so it should be: for this right was given by Christ our God to the apostles alone, and the successors of the apostles are the bishops. Thus, presbyters, being in the rank of the Seventy, do not have the right to impart the Spirit, that is, grace, nor to ordain, nor to perform chrismation, nor to grant the forgiveness of sins to the soul, just as Philip, one of the seven deacons, could not do this. The Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands by the holy apostles Peter and John, and similarly by the other twelve apostles and their successors in the episcopate. Subsequently, the apostles ordained many from the number of the Seventy. Similarly, presbyters, receiving ordination from the bishop, may perform these acts by the bishop’s prescription or command, according to the church rules. Only in this case should their rights be referred to the bishops, who have them to a greater degree and in greater scope: for presbyters do not have the right to judge everything. Especially, they cannot without the bishop absolve sins that are subject to prohibition, nor criminal offenses, nor falls, nor perjury of priests, and the like. Thus, if even those who have received episcopal grammata are obliged to inquire in what cases they can fully exercise their right to absolve, what can be said of those who have not received them? And even more so, of those who have not been ordained. Therefore, together with those who minister without ordination, they too will be judged. However, if someone among the laity, out of necessity and in extreme need, is asked to hear a confession, such a person should refer it to the bishop or to one who has the right to minister, confirmed by a gramata. And we know that this happens with many devout monks. They must remember that they cannot absolve on their own, nor call themselves spiritual fathers, for they do not have the right to do so. But if out of necessity they receive a confession and confess, they must, being not spiritual fathers, refer matters of salvation to the appropriate person: and if there is a minister nearby, they should direct the penitent to him. If not, then let them receive the confession, but afterward pass it on to the spiritual father. Everything they have heard and learned from the penitent, they must convey to the one who has the authority to decide, so that the right of absolution remains inviolate. We have heard, however, that bishops grant the right to perform penance to monks who have not received ordination, but it seems to us that this is not necessary at all, for the one who receives the confession needs to bless, read prayers, and administer the holy mysteries to those in need—in short, to be a priest, so as to offer the sacrifice, intercede, and pray for the penitent. In the case of extreme need, when there is no one else present who has been ordained for this, it is, of course, permissible to allow devout monks to receive confessions, but only so that they do not absolve on their own, but report it to the local bishop, and the decision is made by him. However, the priest should have an assistant in this matter, so that, in case of need, the assistant can perform what is necessary for him, such as reading the absolution prayer, administering the holy mysteries, removing the prosphora for the penitent, and performing the anointing with oil along with the other priests. As for me, I regard this matter with reverence and believe that the sacrament of penance cannot be performed by one who has not received ordination: for this belongs to the priesthood” (Symeon of Thessalonica, Part 2, p. 146).

Saint John Chrysostom says: “Whoever honors a priest, honors God, and whoever despises a priest will eventually come to insult God. ‘He who receives you receives Me,’ says the Lord (Matt. 10:40); in another place, it is said, ‘Give honor to the priests of God’ (Num. 18:8). The Jews began to despise God because they despised Moses and even threw stones at him. He who reveres a priest will all the more revere God. Even if a priest is impious (in life), God, seeing that you honor him out of reverence for Him, will Himself reward you. If someone receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, says the Lord, he will receive a prophet’s reward (Matt. 10:41); and certainly, the one who respects the priest, listens to him, and obeys him will receive a reward. If, in the case of hospitality, when you do not know whom you are receiving, you receive such a reward, how much more will you receive when you obey the one whom the Lord commands you to obey? ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat,’ He said: ‘therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but do not do according to their works’ (Matt. 23:2-3). Do you not know what a priest is? He is an angel of the Lord. Does he speak of his own? If you despise him, you despise not him, but the God who ordained him. But how do you know, you ask, that God ordained him? But if you do not believe this, then your hope is in vain: for if God does nothing through him, then you neither have baptism, nor partake of the mysteries, nor receive blessings, and thus you are not a Christian. How, you ask, does God ordain all, even the unworthy? God does not ordain all, but He acts through all—even if they are unworthy—for the salvation of the people. If He spoke to the people through a donkey and Balaam, a wicked man (Num. 22), how much more through a priest? What does He not do for our salvation? What does He not proclaim? Through whom does He not act? If He acted through Judas and through those prophets to whom He says, ‘I do not know you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’ (Luke 13:23; Matt. 7:23), and who cast out evil spirits, how much more will He act through priests? When we begin to scrutinize the lives of those in authority, we want to be the ones who ordain teachers, and thus everything is turned upside down, with the feet on top and the head below. Listen to Paul, who says: ‘But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court’ (1 Cor. 4:3). And again: ‘But why do you judge your brother?’ (Rom. 14:10). If we should not judge a brother, then how much more a teacher? If God commanded you to do this, you would do well, and would sin if you did not; but if He does not, then do not be presumptuous and do not overstep your bounds. When the golden calf was made, the associates of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rose up against Aaron (Num. 17), but did they not perish? Each one should take care of his own affairs. Do not listen to one who teaches false doctrine, even if he is an angel; but if one teaches true doctrine, do not look at his life, but at his words… In a father, though he may have countless weaknesses, the son covers them all: ‘Do not glory in the dishonor of your father, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you: though his understanding fail, show him forgiveness’ (Sirach 3:10,13). If this is said of earthly fathers, how much more must it be said of spiritual fathers. Be ashamed: he serves you every day, offers you the reading of scripture, adorns the house of God for you, stays awake for you, prays for you, stands before God and intercedes for you, makes petitions for you, performs all his ministry for you. Be ashamed of this, remember it, and approach him with all reverence. Is he not good? But tell me, what of it? And does a good one bestow great benefits on you? No, everything is accomplished by your faith. The righteous man will bring you no benefit if you are unbelieving, and the impious (in life) will not harm you if you are believing. God acted even through oxen with the ark when He wished to save His people (1 Sam. 6). Does the life or virtue of the priest accomplish anything like this? The gifts of God are not such that they depend on the virtue of the priest: everything comes from grace; the priest’s task is only to open his mouth, and God accomplishes everything: the priest only performs the visible actions… I want to say something wonderful, but do not be amazed or disturbed. What is it? The offering (in the Eucharist) is the same, no matter who performs it—whether Paul or Peter: it is the same as what Christ gave to His disciples. The same is performed now by priests: it is no less than that, for it is not men who sanctify, but God Himself, who sanctified it then. Just as the words spoken now by the priest are the same as those spoken by the Lord, so the offering is the same: and the baptism is the same that He gave. Thus, everything depends on faith… and this offering is the Body (of Christ) just as that was: and whoever thinks it is less does not know that Christ is still present and still acts” (Apostolic Homilies in Russian Translation. 2nd Homily on the 2nd Epistle to Timothy).

If the Priesthood is Not Nullified by the Unworthiness of Sacred Persons, Why Do the Sacred Canons Impose the Judgment of Deposition, Excommunication, and Anathema Upon Them, and When Does This Judgment Have Power Over Its Guilty Subjects? #

Joseph, Patriarch of Moscow, in his teaching to the sacred order, says: “If the canons command someone to be deposed, then let that person be deposed, even if no formal ecclesiastical court has been held against him.” This is in agreement with the following statement by Pope Leontius of Rome, who said: “Let us, bishops and priests, clothe ourselves with the radiant power, I pray, and let us receive the teaching and reasonable adornment, urging and leading the people of the Lord to every virtue by deed, word, and all manners of life. For Christ says to us: ‘You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its flavor, with what shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men’” (Commentary on the Gospel, 1st Sunday of Great Lent). The same is found in the words of the venerable Isidore of Pelusium, who says: “The priesthood is a divine thing, most honorable among all, yet it is particularly offended by those who govern it poorly… let us weep over those who unworthily pass through it” (Alpha and Omega, Chapter 46). However, the Holy Church is forced to tolerate unworthy ministers until they are sufficiently exposed and subjected to a lawful spiritual court by the proper authority. This is unless there are difficult circumstances in the Church preventing proper judgment, and the offenders prove to be so impious that they openly commit lawlessness and teach others to do the same as if it were God’s righteousness. In such cases, they should not be tolerated by the faithful, even if no formal ecclesiastical court has been held against them.

The venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk cites the following statements of the holy fathers. John Chrysostom: “If a bishop holds a corrupt command, even if he were an angel, do not obey him.” Saint Athanasius the Great: “When walking the unerring path, let us cast out the eye, not the physical eye but the spiritual one, meaning, if a bishop or presbyter, who are the eyes of the Church, live improperly and cause others to stumble, it is proper to cast them out: it is better for the people to gather in the prayerful temple without them than to perish with them, like with Annas and Caiaphas, in the fiery Gehenna…” From the holy canons: “Those who have separated themselves from communion with their bishop because of some heresy, condemned by holy councils or fathers, are not only free from canonical penalties but are worthy of honor befitting the Orthodox. They have condemned not bishops but pseudo-bishops and false teachers, and have striven not to break the Church’s unity but to save the Church from schisms and divisions” (The Enlightener, Word 12).

Nevertheless, the proper judgment of deposition, excommunication, and anathema is extremely necessary for the clergy because the Holy Church holds the office of teaching solely for the pure proclamation of the Holy Gospel and must therefore reject such teachers who, either by a corrupt life or by incorrect teaching, destroy the purity of this proclamation. However, even the lawful judgment of the Church, whether in deposition, excommunication, or anathema, does not completely deprive the condemned clergy of the sacred order once conferred upon them through Christ-bestowed ordination. Theodore Valsamon, in his commentary on the 18th canon of the Council of Sardica, says: “Musaeus and Eutychius, not being ordained, ordained some clergy as bishops. When Bishop Gaudentius (at the Council of Sardica) demanded that for the sake of God’s peace, those ordained by them be accepted, since they were unaware of this evil at the time of their ordination, another bishop, by the name of Hosius (with whom the entire council agreed), replied that although we must be charitable and moderate, we should accept into the clergy those who were consecrated by bishops who were indeed bishops but had been deposed from their assigned bishoprics for some crimes, provided that the clergy themselves voluntarily return to the churches in whose clergy they were assigned. But those ordained by Eutychius and Musaeus should be treated as laymen, for their ordainers cannot even claim the name of bishop. Thus, note that those appointed to the clergy by deposed persons, or even those anathematized, are not subjected to any judgment under this canon” (Canons of the Local Councils with Commentaries by Zonaras, Aristen, and Valsamon).

The final clause—that those appointed to the clergy by deposed or anathematized persons are not subjected to any judgment under this canon (18th Sardican Council) was added by Valsamon because the First Ecumenical Council accepted those ordained by such persons when they reconciled with the Church. Regarding this, historians write as follows. One says: “At that time, the Donatist, as well as the Meletian heresy, arose, named after its author Meletius, bishop of Egypt. He, when from Peter of Alexandria, the bishop, for various crimes, including offering sacrifices to idols during the Diocletian persecution, was deposed from the episcopal office at a general council of bishops and completely separated from Peter, and spread slander against him and the other bishops, gaining many supporters. He, despising Peter’s authority, withdrew to the city of Lycopolis, where he ordained many, causing great discord among the Egyptian churches. However, at the Council of Nicaea, it was decided that Meletius should retain only the title of bishop, without engaging in episcopal activities, and those ordained by him should remain in their rank, but of lesser status than those ordained by the Alexandrian bishop” (Historical Theater, Book 7, Century 4, Leaf 178). Another historian presents the actual letter of the First Ecumenical Council to the Church of Alexandria, which states: “The council wished to show more leniency towards Meletius, though in strict judgment, he did not deserve any indulgence. He will remain in his city but has no right to ordain or elect, and should not appear in any village or city but only retain the name of his dignity. Those ordained by him and confirmed by sacred ordination are accepted into communion, though they must hold the second place in dignity and service, after those appointed in each parish and church by our esteemed fellow servant, Alexander. The first are not allowed to elect whom they please, nor to propose names, nor to do anything without the consent of the bishop of the catholic church under Alexander’s jurisdiction: on the contrary, by the grace of God and your prayers, those who have not been reproved for any schism and live blamelessly in the bosom of the catholic church may elect and propose the names of persons worthy of the clergy, and do all things according to the law and church custom. If any of the clergy should pass away, then in their place those newly received should be allowed to serve, provided they are found worthy and are elected by the people with the consent and approval of the bishop of Alexandria. This is permitted to all others, but regarding Meletius, due to his past disorders, his unwise and obstinate character, the opinion is different: he, as one who might cause the same disorders, is given no right or authority” (Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 9, p. 47).

Regarding those anathematized, the First Ecumenical Council decreed in its 8th canon that those who were consecrated in the heresy of the Novatians, after joining the holy catholic church, should remain in their orders. Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, says: “The Novatians are called ‘pure ones’: Novatus was a presbyter of the Roman church who did not accept those who repented after falling during persecution and did not enter into communion with those who were married twice. Therefore, although he did not err in the faith, due to his lack of mercy and brotherly love, he was excommunicated and anathematized by the council held in Rome under Cornelius, the pope of Rome, during the reign of Decius, as historian Eusebius Pamphilius reports. Therefore, this canon decrees that his followers, when they return to the Church, should be received with a written confession that they will observe the dogmas of the catholic Church, will accept those who have denied Christ out of necessity, and will arrange for their return according to the times determined for the repentance of the fallen… and will be in communion with those married twice. If they have been ordained as bishops, presbyters, or deacons, then those who join the Church remain in the clergy in their ranks, if there are no other (Orthodox) in the churches where they were ordained. Since their error was not a deviation from the faith but brotherly love and the denial of repentance for the fallen and returning, the council accepted their ordination and decreed that they remain in their ranks if there is no bishop of the catholic Church in the city. But if they are in such a church where there is a bishop or presbyter, then that bishop should hold the dignity and title of bishop, while the one named bishop among the ‘pure ones’ should have the honor of either presbyter or chorepiscopus (rural bishop), so that he is counted among the clergy and not excluded from it unless the bishop of the catholic Church, out of condescension, wishes him to retain the title and honor of bishop: but even then, he should not act as a bishop, so that there are not two bishops in the same city” (Canons of the Ecumenical Councils with Commentaries by Zonaras, Aristen, and Valsamon).

The same idea about the recognition of the priesthood of those deposed and anathematized is found in the first canon of Basil the Great. Afterward, the same understanding was maintained by all seven Ecumenical Councils, as witnessed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where the most esteemed monks present said: “Just as the six holy and ecumenical councils accepted those returning from heresy (bishops who had been deposed and anathematized), so we accept them (i.e., iconoclastic bishops).” The holy council responded: “We all agree to this.” And an order was given to the most esteemed Basil, bishop of Ancyra, Theodore, bishop of Myra, and Theodosius, most esteemed bishop of Amorium, to occupy their previous positions and sees (Council Acts, vol. 7, pp. 86 and 112).

Thus, if those ordained by impostors are not accepted as clergy, but those ordained by deposed and anathematized bishops are accepted, it is clear that deposed and anathematized bishops are not equal to impostors. This means that by deposition and anathema pronounced against them, they are only removed from the administration of the Church of Christ, that is, they are excluded from governing Orthodox Christians because their leadership is harmful rather than beneficial. However, they are not stripped of the sacred duty to lead people from worse to better through the pure preaching of the Gospel. For failing to fulfill this sacred duty, they will be held accountable on the last day of judgment before God. Therefore, when they come to the proper understanding to fully perform their sacred duty, and the Church is convinced of this, it once again accepts both them and those ordained by them into their sacred orders, according to the decrees of the holy councils.

In the Slavic Kormchaia, the 69th Canon of the Council of Carthage states: “Those ordained by Donatus, even if they have repented at the Roman Council, should not be received into the priesthood.” And in the 1st Canon of Basil the Great, in the full translation, it is said: “Those in ecclesiastical ranks who have fallen away along with the disobedient (those who belong to unauthorized gatherings), when they repent, are sometimes received back into the same rank.” The phrase “sometimes” indicates that they are not always received. Therefore, the acceptance of heretical clergy into their ranks is not mandatory, and it seems possible not to recognize their priesthood? #

Not receiving heretical clergy into the priesthood and not recognizing their priesthood are not the same but are two different matters. The apostolic and conciliar canons indicate numerous offenses for which even Orthodox ordained clergy are deposed. Those deposed are not permitted to perform sacred rites, which means they are not received into the priesthood, and they are not received, obviously, not because they lack ordination, but simply because their ministry does not benefit the Church of Christ, but only harms it.

Therefore, if the ministry of the priesthood, even for those ordained in Orthodoxy, is considered with scrutiny, it is clear that the Holy Church cannot view clergy who convert from heresy differently. And if, in addition to their heretical errors, the Church finds other offenses that warrant their deposition, it does not accept their priesthood. In the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is written as follows: “The most holy Patriarch Tarasius (the president of this holy council) said… Therefore, we have already heard the canonical decrees and the conciliar definitions, as well as the defined opinion of the holy fathers, that all (clergy in their ranks) who return from any heresy are to be received in the same manner. The Holy Council said: This is just, if there is no other canonical obstacle to their reception. The most holy Patriarch Tarasius said: So, it is agreeable to everyone to receive them? (i.e., the bishops who converted from iconoclasm). The Holy Council said: It is agreeable to everyone. The most esteemed monks exclaimed: It is agreeable to us as well. The most holy Patriarch Tarasius said: I repeat once more: if there is no other canonical obstacle, then the one coming shall be received because it is necessary to fully observe the canonical decrees.” The most esteemed monks said: In accordance with the six Holy and Ecumenical Councils, we receive those who convert from heresy (iconoclastic bishops), if there is no reason preventing this (vol. 7, p. 111).

Athanasius the Great counts among the reasons that prevent the reception of heretical clergy into the priesthood the fact that they were leaders and defenders of heresy. He says in his letter to Rufinian: “Concerning those who were misled out of necessity, it was decreed (at the local councils held at that time) that mercy should be shown to those who have fallen and were leaders of impiety if they repent, but they should not be given a place in the clergy; while those misled by necessity and violence, but who were not leaders of impiety, should be forgiven and given a place in the clergy, especially if they convincingly justified themselves, saying that they did not fall into impiety but preferred to submit to violence, so that some more impious individuals, rising against the Church, would not destroy it. For this reason, they became acceptable in the clergy, while forgiveness is granted to those deceived and subjected to violence” (Synopsis). Valsamon, in his commentary on this, writes: “Saint Athanasius says that those who have fallen and entered into communion with heretics and were leaders and defenders of impiety, though they are accepted as penitents, yet being clergy or otherwise ordained, are not deemed worthy of the priesthood. But those who did not wield power over impiety, that is, who did not enter into communion with heretics by their own will and conviction but were forcibly drawn from piety into impiety, if they are clergy, are deemed worthy of forgiveness and are not excluded from the clergy—especially because they assert that they did not fall into impiety, that is, did not accept the teachings of the heretics, but entered into communion with them on the grounds that, after their expulsion from the churches, other more impious individuals would not be introduced in their place and corrupt the Orthodox” (Canons of the Holy Fathers with Commentaries, p. 134).

Thus, it is clear why heretical clergy, or those who have fallen into discord or schism, are sometimes not received. And it is certainly for this reason that the Roman Council did not receive into the priesthood those ordained by the Donatists who had repented. For during the time of Julian the Apostate, all the Donatists were seized with extreme madness. Baronius recounts that they then began to behave with great shamelessness and audacity toward the Orthodox, daring to expel them from churches, kill them, torture them, and commit acts of robbery and villainy against them… they even dared to attack altars and throw the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the body of the Lord, to dogs… they forced nuns to renounce their vows, tearing the veils, the symbols of their promise, from their heads: they seized Catholic books, holy scriptures, vestments, and church vessels with the help of pagan authorities. And thus, at that time under Julian, they became so powerful that later many pious emperors were unable to humble, pacify, or eradicate them (Year of Our Lord 362, number 31). But when such audacity was not yet noticed in them, Pope Melchiades, with the council that was with him, accepted into the priesthood the repentant Donatists. Augustine writes about this, saying that Pope Melchiades wanted to bring peace to the Donatists and extinguish the schism in which there were two bishops in cities—one Orthodox and the other a Donatist—so that only Donatus would be condemned and expelled from the Church as the leader of the entire schism, while the others would be reconciled. The one who was first consecrated would remain on the throne, and the other would be given a bishopric elsewhere, which Augustine greatly praises, calling Melchiades the son of peace and the father of all Christianity (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 313, number 8).

And the Council of Carthage accepted into the priesthood not those extremely mad Donatists described by Baronius, but those who had already reformed from that madness, as is clearly stated in its 69th canon, which says: “Those who have reformed shall be accepted.” And in the full translation of the canons, it is expressed thus: “For the sake of peace and the benefit of the Church, even from the Donatist clergy who have corrected their disposition and wished to come to Catholic unity, they may be accepted into their ranks of the priesthood, according to the judgment and will of each Catholic bishop governing the Church in that place, if this appears to contribute to the peace of Christians.” And from this, it can also be seen that the Council of Carthage did not command the acceptance into the priesthood of such Donatist clergy from whom no benefit to the Church of Christ could be foreseen due to their previous moral corruption. But if one Donatist cleric is accepted into the priesthood for his good morals, while another is not accepted due to his previous wickedness, then it is clear that the one who is not accepted is not rejected because his priestly rank is not recognized, but because he cannot, as he should, govern it. For this reason, even those ordained in Orthodoxy are deposed from their rank.

But does this rejection from the priesthood nullify and terminate the sacred order they received through ordination, passed down in succession from Christ? This question was raised as early as the fourth century. According to the answer of Athanasius the Great to Rufinian, it was resolved by many local councils of Orthodox bishops in this way—that the priesthood is not nullified or terminated for schismatics and schism-makers, or, as the presbyter Timothy called them, for heretics of the second and third rank. Those who asserted that the priesthood was nullified and terminated on them became schismatics of the Church of Christ themselves. Baronius recounts: “Lucifer (bishop of Cagliari) was agitated because the Council of Alexandria restored the episcopal honor to those returning from heresy. For this reason, he later became a schismatic when he saw that the Roman Church accepted and confirmed their decision. When Lucifer returned to Rome, he refused to associate with those bishops who had defiled themselves with heresy. He did not accept those bishops who had been ensnared and deceived by the Arians at the Council of Ariminum, and thus he taught, and left behind some disciples of the same opinion, who did not last long. He had no fault in the faith… Jerome praises him and vindicates him, but he cannot deny that he died in schism, grieved the holy Church, and frightened all, including the most devout servants of God. This great bishop was a wall against the Arians, performed many church missions, suffered much for the faith from the heretics, endured long and harsh exile, stood sharply against Emperor Constantius, and feared not a single death for the truth. How much we can learn from him about humility and mercy towards the fallen” (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 362, numbers 25, 26).

And the blessed Jerome, whom Baronius mentioned, wrote a lengthy dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and a Luciferian, where, in defense of the indestructibility and continuity of the priesthood even among bishops who had fallen into heresy, such power was expressed by the Orthodox that the Luciferian, though a very subtle dialectician, could not stand against it and finally, being defeated, immediately joined the Orthodox (Jerome, vol. 4, pp. 57-92).

And further about Lucifer: before falling into schism, he was in exile for the Orthodox confession, and when he was freed from it, according to Baronius, he went to Antioch to help the Orthodox, seeing that the Orthodox people there were divided: for one part had Meletius, and the other opposed him because he had previously been an Arian, and those who followed him were baptized by Arians. Wanting to give them a bishop whom both sides would accept, Lucifer elevated Paulinus, a worthy and holy man who had never defiled himself with heresy, to the episcopacy. However, Meletius’ followers did not want to depart from him (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 362, number 24). And at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Peter, the beloved presbyter who represented Adrian, the most holy pope of Rome, said: “As the historians say, Saint Meletius was ordained by the Arians: but ascending the ambo, he proclaimed the word `consubstantial’: and his ordination was not rejected.” Theodore, the most holy bishop of Catania, and the bishops of Sicily with him said: “The protopresbyter of the Apostolic See has spoken the truth” (Council Acts, vol. 7, p. 109).

Among those who, according to Baronius, did not want to depart from Meletius, was Saint John Chrysostom. For he, being in Antioch, was ordained a deacon by Meletius, and began to write and preach with marvelous eloquence (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 382, number 5). And in the 11th Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote against the schismatics who tear themselves away from the Church while maintaining the same faith (i.e., the Luciferians who were in Antioch during the time of Bishop Paulinus), saying that it is against the law and the canons to do so. In this homily, Saint Chrysostom pronounces a severe condemnation upon them and says, among other things: “What I have said is directed to those who recklessly involve themselves in tearing apart the Church. If, then, they have contrary dogmas, and for this reason, it is not proper to mix with them: but if they hold the same beliefs much more. Why? Because the desire for authority is an illness. Do you not know what happened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? Was it only they who suffered? Or those with them? What do you say, the faith is the same, they are Orthodox too: so why are they not with us? One Lord, one faith, one baptism. If their faith is good, then ours is bad, but if ours is good, then theirs is bad. The children, he said, tossed and driven by every wind. Is it not enough, tell me, that they say they are Orthodox? But the ordination, does it disappear and perish? And what is the benefit if there is no danger in this? Just as we should fight for the faith, so should we fight for this” (Apostolic Homilies).

Here Chrysostom condemns the Luciferians for letting ordination disappear and perish. But how does it disappear and perish among them? It cannot be said that they rejected Christ’s institution of the episcopate, for they themselves recognized Lucifer as a bishop. And it is impossible to assume that after Lucifer, they remained without a bishop. For in Antioch, Lucifer ordained Paulinus as their bishop, and after Paulinus, the Luciferians appointed Evagrius as their bishop (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 389, number 5). But it was precisely among them that ordination disappeared and perished because they no longer recognized the sacred rank among the Arians and those who had fallen into Arianism and received the repentant as laypeople. For this reason, they did not accept Meletius, the Archbishop of Antioch, who had turned away from Arianism, as an archbishop, but set up another bishop, Paulinus, against him. But this undertaking of theirs, Saint John Chrysostom called a disease of ambition and compared it to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And very justly, because it was aimed not at upholding Christ-bestowed ordination but at its ultimate overthrow. It is true that falling into heresy is guilty of violating divine canons, but we must know that every sin also violates divine canons. And if we say that in the violation of the canons by falling into heresy, the ordination of sacred persons disappears and perishes, then we must say that in the violation of the canons by the sins of the ordained, their ordination also disappears and perishes. And since, apart from Christ, no one is without sin, it would be necessary to recognize that Christ-bestowed ordination to the priesthood has completely disappeared and perished. And therefore, the Luciferians were already wrong to set up Paulinus against Meletius, for according to their disease of ambition, it would also be possible to set up another against Paulinus, and against that one yet another, and so on in an endless, unceasing manner. But according to their error, ordination should be considered as having disappeared and perished in all violators of the canons, as Chrysostom’s further words in the same homily clearly show, saying: “For if it is permitted to everyone to fulfill their own will, and be priests according to the ancient saying, then let all approach, the altar was set up in vain, the fulfillment of the Church was in vain, the number of priests was in vain, let us remove these things, and let us corrupt them. Let it not be, he said. You (i.e., the Luciferians) do these things and say—let it not be. How do you say—let it not be, what is happening?… How can we endure the mockery of the Greeks? If they reproach us concerning heresies, what will they say about these things? If you say that their dogmas are the same, their mysteries are the same, why does one leader leap upon another Church (in the same city)? Do you see, he said, that all things Christian are full of vanity? and ambition among them and deception? Strip them of the multitude, he said, cut off the illness, the corruption of the people, and they are nothing. Do you want me to tell you what they say about our city (Antioch)? How they readily slander us? It is easy, he said, for anyone who wants to find followers, and they will never lack these. Oh, the laughter! How much shame is there in this?” (The same 11th Homily).

Thus, Saint John Chrysostom delivered a fatal blow to the Luciferian schism with this condemnation, so much so that with Chrysostom’s death, that schism in Antioch also died, for Chrysostom departed from this temporal life in the year 407, and the Luciferian schism in Antioch, which had lasted 48 years, was destroyed by the reconciliation of the Antiochian bishop Alexander in the year 408, and great harmony was restored to that Church (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 407, number 2: and Year of Our Lord 408, number 6).

But unfortunately, even in our days, that Luciferian error, that in schismatics and church schism-makers Christ-bestowed ordination disappears and perishes, has revived again. For on the one hand, the Archimandrite of the Moscow Old Believer Nikolsky Monastery, Pavel, and his disciples have published numerous books under various titles, where they advance the idea that with any fall into heresy, the ordination of bishops is nullified and terminated: a view also held by the All-Russian Synod, which rejects the Old Believer hierarchy as imposture. And on the other hand, all the “priestless” groups remain without priesthood because they recognized all Christ-bestowed priesthood as nullified and terminated from the time when all the Russian bishops submitted to the errors introduced into the Russian Church by Nikon, the Patriarch of Moscow. Therefore, the condemnation spoken by Saint Chrysostom against the Luciferians will fully apply to them as well. But Chrysostom cries out very sternly against this, saying: “Nothing so divides the Church as ambition; nothing so provokes God as the division of the Church. Even if we have done countless good deeds, we will receive no less punishment for tearing apart His body and severing the fullness of the Church… These things I have spoken not only to the leaders but also to the followers (i.e., the subordinates). A certain holy man said, what seems to be audacious, but nevertheless proclaimed: What is this? Not even the blood of martyrs can erase this sin… For this reason, I speak and testify, that to fall into heresy and to tear apart the Church is no lesser evil” (the same 11th Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians).

If We Do Not Find Pious Priests—Should We Submit to the Guidance of Impious Ones, or Is It Better to Remain Without Any Dependence on the Priesthood? #

Saint John Chrysostom, on the words of the Apostle—“Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Hebrews 13:17), says: “Lack of leadership is evil everywhere, the cause of many calamities, the beginning of disorder and confusion: especially in the Church, it is more dangerous, the greater and higher its authority. If you remove the leader from a choir, the choir will not be harmonious and united. If you take away the commander from a troop of soldiers, their actions will not be carried out with order and discipline. If you deprive a ship of its helmsman, you will sink the ship: likewise here, if the flock does not have a shepherd, everything will be ruined and destroyed. Lack of leadership is evil and the cause of confusion. But no less evil is the disobedience of the subjects, for it causes the same. A people that does not obey its leader is the same as a people that has no leader, or perhaps even worse: for those who have no leader can be excused for their disorder, but those who have one and disobey him are inexcusable and worthy of punishment. But someone may say, there is another evil—when the leader is not good. I know: this is not a small evil, and it is even greater than the lack of leadership, because it is better to have no one to govern than to be under the governance of a bad leader: in the first case, the people are sometimes in danger, and sometimes they are saved. In the latter case, they are always in danger and are led into destruction. Why then does Paul say: ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them’? He previously said: ‘Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith’ (Hebrews 13:7), and then he says: ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them.’ But what if, you say, the leader is not good—should we not obey him? Not good—in what sense do you mean? If in relation to faith, then flee from him and do not associate with him, even if he is not only a man but even an angel descended from heaven; but if in relation to life, do not inquire about it… Listen to what Christ says: ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works’ (Matthew 23:2-3). They have, He says, authority, but are impure in life. But you pay attention not to their life, but to their words. No one will suffer harm from the behavior of others. Why? Because it is evident to everyone, and a bad man, even if he is a thousand times bad, will never teach bad things. But faults in relation to faith are not evident to all, and a bad man in this respect will not be ashamed to teach others” (34th Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews).

Here, Saint Chrysostom very strictly condemns lack of leadership, and to avoid this evil, he urges enduring even those priests who are not good in their lives, and advises to avoid them only when they are not pious in doctrine. However, even in such a case, he does not guarantee the salvation of those who remain without leadership, but says that even in such a case, the people are not always saved, and sometimes they are in danger. Therefore, to avoid such doubts about our salvation, in any difficult circumstances, we should strive in every possible way to be worthy of receiving sanctification through the Church’s sacraments from an Orthodox priest. “Although not everyone is called to the priesthood,” it is written in the Great Catechism, “everyone is bound to seek out the priesthood, for without it one cannot be saved” (Chapter 72). And the venerable Peter of Damascus says: “If the doors of the kingdom of heaven are not opened by the priestly service, no one can enter it” (at the end of the 1st book in Philokalia). So, if we are among impious priests in one place, we should seek out those places where there are pious priests. But if we cannot find pious priests anywhere, even then we should not fall into despair as if the Christ-bestowed priesthood has been utterly destroyed. But heeding how even the erring angels of the churches are called to repentance in the Apocalypse, let us first of all ask the Lord God that He does not completely deprive us of the saving grace given through the Church’s sacraments, and then call the erring priests to repentance, since, according to the irrevocable gifts and calling of God (Romans 11:29), their priesthood is not considered nullified by their error. And if we only ask God with faith and call the erring priests to repentance with proper sincerity, then, according to His infallible word: ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you’ (Matthew 7:7), our fervent prayer and good endeavor to acquire a pious priesthood will not be in vain but will be crowned with good success.

What Should Be Done if the Clergy Become Corrupt and Harden in Their Corruption to the Point That They Will Never Wish to Correct Themselves? #

Though it is foretold that woe will come to the world because of offenses, yet, according to the holy Psalmist, only the truth of the Lord endures forever (Psalm 116:2), and every falsehood will deceive itself (Psalm 26:12). Therefore, even if at times various corruptions of the Lord’s truth arise and disturb the world, none of them can establish itself unshakably or exist without being properly exposed. Every supposed power of any error will be temporary, not eternal, as can be seen even from the very prophecies about the offenses that are to come upon this world (Matthew 18:7).

First, we refer to the prophecy when, according to the prediction of the Prophet Daniel, the abomination of desolation will be seen standing in the holy place, from which, according to the Lord’s command, those in Judea must flee to the mountains and pray that their flight is not in winter or on the Sabbath. We do not point to this prophecy to imply that it can only mean what we have mentioned here, but because among other interpretations, it rightly applies to bishops who fall into corruption, as noted by the Council of Jerusalem, which gathered 1,453 fathers (Multifaceted Scroll, Sobornik Bolshoi, p. 384). Then, as Christ foretold, there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. And if those days had not been shortened, no flesh would be saved (and it is not easy, even nearly impossible, to be saved without the guidance of Orthodox clergy, as shown in the previous response): but for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened (Matthew 24:21-22). Here, a great tribulation is foretold, but with an end. This indicates that the power of this unbearable tribulation will only last for a time and then weaken, and even completely cease for the sake of the elect, rather than continue indefinitely.

Second, we refer to the Apostle Paul, who prophetically exclaims: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Here, a time is assigned to the rejection of sound doctrine: and it is called a time precisely because it must come to an end and not be infinite; for endless existence is called not a time, but an age. But that after this rejection of sound doctrine, Orthodox teachers should arise again, the same apostle made clear when instructing the elders of Ephesus, saying: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch… And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:28-32). Thus, if after the bishops who speak perverse things, it is foretold that an inheritance among all those who are sanctified will be given, then it is clear that this inheritance will be held not by those who speak perverse things, but by those who hold to sound doctrine and the word of truth. Therefore, both the rejection of sound doctrine and the perverse-speaking teachers will not last forever, but will be limited to a certain time.

Third, we present the words of Revelation: “And I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind” (Revelation 6:12-13). According to the ancient writing of the Apocalypse, in another interpretation, it is written about this as follows: “What is terrifying, or what can so shake the earth as disobedience to the word of the Lord? This overthrew Jerusalem: this, during the time of Ahab and other kings, destroyed many kingdoms… The disturbance of the earth will remain until the coming of the Lord: when they wish to darken this holy sun, our Lord Jesus Christ, and His righteousness, it will be like sackcloth of hair. And when it says the moon will become as blood, when the sun, meaning Christ, is darkened and becomes like sackcloth of hair. It is impossible to darken the Lord Christ: but He will be covered for a time as if by sackcloth, gnashing at the flesh, meaning by false teaching, which kills not only the body but also the soul. And when this sun, meaning Christ, is darkened, then also the moon, which takes its light from the sun, meaning the Church of Christ, which receives its light from Christ, becomes like blood, when it is darkened for a time by sackcloth of hair, meaning by false heretical teaching. And when it says the stars of heaven fell to the earth… the stars are called the teachers of the Church of God.”

And Saint Ambrose of Milan compares the Church of Christ to the moon, which at times disappears, but remains undestroyed: it can be eclipsed, but not disappear (Explanation of the 4th Verse of Chapter 20 of Revelation, ed. Fyodor Yakovlev). And the same Saint Ambrose further proves that the sacrifice offered by Nehemiah, upon the return of the Jews to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, through the fire that had previously burned unceasingly on the altar but turned into water upon being hidden during the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar, symbolizes the Holy Spirit and Christian baptism. And here he says, among other things: “Justly was the sacrifice consumed by fire, for it was offered for sins. That fire was a prefiguration of the Holy Spirit, who was to come after the Lord’s Ascension and remit the sins of all, who kindles the mind of the faithful soul like fire… And so, this fire is truly sacred fire, descending upon (Old Testament) sacrifices as a prefiguration of the future remission of sins. This fire is hidden during the time of captivity when sin reigns, but during the time of freedom it is revealed, and though it is transformed in the appearance of water, it retains the property of fire, and consumes the sacrifice” (On Duties, Book 3, Chapter 18).

Saint Athanasius the Great writes similarly, saying: “If we are abandoned by men during a time of persecution, let us not be troubled (Galatians 6:9), but place our hope in God and not forsake the truth. If the truth seems to be oppressed at the beginning, it will later be recognized even by its persecutors” (Letter to the Monks, written during the reign of Constantius, Part 2, p. 123).

The certainty of this has been repeatedly testified even by historical events themselves. Thus, at the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia, under the deception of Arianism, 600 bishops ceased to confess the Son of God as consubstantial with the Father, but after the death of Emperor Constantius, almost all of them again confessed Him as consubstantial with the Father, according to the definition of the First Ecumenical Council, and were recognized as Orthodox clergy (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 362, number 24).

Similarly, at the Second Council of Ephesus, under the presidency of Dioscorus, known as the Robber Council, 96 bishops signed on to the heresy of Eutyches (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 451, number 11): but after the death of Emperor Theodosius, at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, all but Dioscorus returned to Orthodoxy and received forgiveness (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 451, number 7).

Likewise, during the reign of Emperor Philippicus, the Eastern bishops assembled in Constantinople unanimously rejected the Sixth Council, confessed everything that the emperor and patriarch commanded, and departed from the faith of the holy fathers (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 712): but after the death of Philippicus, all these bishops returned to Orthodoxy (Baronius, Year of Our Lord 713). Similar events occurred twice during the iconoclastic heresy, and there have been many such actions at other times. The same can be seen in the error that has persisted to our present day, affecting the Great Russian Church, where the leaders alleged heresies in the two-finger sign of the cross and blessings—Arian, Nestorian, and Armenian heresies (Patriarch Nikon’s Answer in the Tablets), to confirm which, they published false books: The Feognost Ritual, The Council Act on Martin the Armenian, and other similar legends. But over time, this falsehood has, as the Psalmist says, already deceived itself, and today all the heresies concerning the two-finger sign of the cross have disappeared. For now, even the advocates of the error introduced by Patriarch Nikon deny the heresies in the two-finger sign of the cross, and no longer consider the writings condemning it to be just, and The Feognost Ritual and The Council Act on Martin the Armenian are now publicly recognized as false testimonies.

Therefore, every corruption of the truth can also be exposed over time, and for this reason, we should never despair of those who have been scandalized but should, to the best of our abilities, always offer them correction for their offense, and especially take care of this when, through their scandal, we are left without the priesthood, without which the Great Catechism denies us even our very salvation.

Can Those Who, Upon Encountering Many Corrupt Clergy, Completely Abandon the Effort to Find Pious Priests, Thinking That Their Own Piety Alone Will Achieve the Sanctification Which Is Granted Only Through the Sacraments, Be Justified? #

No matter how pious they may be, if they remain without the priesthood out of negligence, they cannot be justified in any way. For this negligence is a clear sign of their disbelief in the eternity of Christ’s priesthood, concerning which it is written in the Book of Cyril: “Christ came as the High Priest of the good things to come, and just as He Himself never dies, so His priesthood after the order of Melchizedek does not cease, as it is written: `You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalm 109:4). The priesthood of Aaron ceased as it was temporary, but the eternal priesthood of Christ arose, for He, rising from the dead, consecrated His apostles to this through the laying on of hands, which is ordination, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them, and ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51). And the apostles consecrated bishops… and the bishops, in turn, consecrated priests… and thus the priesthood of Christ continues” (Chapter 8, p. 77). Blessed Theodoret says that the Levitical priesthood has already ended and the blessing of the higher priesthood has passed to the tribe of Judah. And Christ, who came from Judah according to the flesh, now holds the priesthood, not offering anything Himself, but being the head over those who offer” (Commentary on Psalm 109:4 by Euthymius Zigabenus), and therefore “He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him,” the apostle cries out (Hebrews 7:25).

Moreover, the Book of Faith states the following: “The messenger of the wisdom and power of the Fathers, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and Shepherd of shepherds, the true head of the one Church, laying down His life for His people, whom He redeemed with His precious blood, did not wish to leave His heritage on earth without order when He ascended to heaven, but took two silver coins and gave them to the innkeepers, that is, the Old and New Testaments. To whom did He give them? Who are the innkeepers? The apostles and after them their successors—the shepherds and teachers, archbishops and bishops, who are ministers of His majestic providence, with whom He made a covenant to remain even unto the end of the age” (Chapter 7, p. 59), according to the saying: “And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

Similarly, on the words of the prophet spoken by God the Father to the Son: “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Psalm 109:4), Blessed Theodoret writes: “The divine apostle fully explained this in the Epistle to the Hebrews and proved the eternal nature of this high priesthood by the fact that the Levitical priesthood did not receive promises with an oath, but this one was confirmed with an oath. Therefore, it is added: `and will not relent,’ because God, who rules over all, has arranged many things and allowed some to undergo changes. Thus, He established the Jewish priesthood and then abolished it; He raised up the Jewish kingdom and then destroyed it; He allowed the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Macedonian kingdoms to exist and commanded their destruction. But as He willed this priesthood to be eternal, as it is said, He swore that He would not relent” (Part 3, p. 259).

Thus, it is clear that the Christ-ordained priesthood is eternal and cannot be destroyed by any sinfulness of the clergy, as has been shown in previous answers. Therefore, it is condemnable to remain without the priesthood when pious priests are available. For Christ said to His disciples: “He who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). But if we remain without the priesthood only because we do not call corrupt clergy to repentance, then even in that case, we become violators of the 70th or, according to some translations, the 80th canon of the Council of Carthage, which commands: “It is pleasing to all to send messengers to the Donatists (clerics) to preach peace and unity to them, if they join the Orthodox faith” (Slavonic Kormchaya). And the 71st chapter of the Kormchaya commands that the divine canons of the holy councils and holy fathers be preserved until the end of the age. And no one, it further says, has the power to change the canons or to reject them, or to accept anything other than what has been established… And finally, for those who disregard the sacred and divine canons of our holy fathers, which establish the Church and adorn all Christian life and lead to divine piety, anathema is proclaimed" (Kormchaya, pp. 637, 639 verso, and 641).

If, in addition to this, we pay attention to what the following passages say: “The book of Zonaras commands that priests be invited into homes, and that every Christian should have blessings from them in their houses. For where priests do not enter and do not pray, there God departs, and all things are in despondency and defilement” (Chapter 17, p. 4). Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica, against those who do not believe that the divine gifts are sanctified by priestly prayers, says: “They boldly and blasphemously reject the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and they reject—frightening to say!—His effective power, promised and truly given by the Savior Himself to the apostles, who were ordained by it as priests and shepherds at the time when the All-Holy Spirit descended upon them and placed His power in them through fiery tongues, and by this power they performed both the priestly services and ordinations through the laying on of hands, as well as healings and miracles. For in this case, it is not the simple words that have power: `make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ,’ and so on—but the fact that the priest says this with the Spirit, that is, with the grace or power of the priesthood. Hence, it is clear that even if tens of thousands of times the Lord’s words and all the divine invocations were uttered by all the kings, or ascetics, or all the pious, who do not have the priesthood, or even all the faithful together on earth—nothing would happen if there is no priest: and the gifts offered by them would by no means be sanctified and would not be transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. For it is not man but God who acts through the priest, who invokes the grace of the Spirit, and what the priest says is effective by the power of the priesthood. And this power is the power of God, which is not possessed by every believer but only by the one who has received priestly ordination. And every prayer of his has its effective power through divine grace. Whoever does not believe this and does not accept this does not accept baptism, nor the mystery of chrism, nor the ordination of holy orders, nor the remission of sins, nor the sacred prayer of the monastic rite, and comes close to the unbeliever, and distances himself from the lot of Christians: for all these things are accomplished through the prayers of holy persons” (Part 2, Chapter 88).

And Saint Ignatius the God-bearer says: “He who is within the altar is pure, and for that reason, he obeys the bishop and the presbyters. But he who is outside and does anything without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, such a one is defiled in conscience and worse than an unbeliever… He who does not listen to these is certainly godless and impious, and rejects Christ, and diminishes His institution” (Epistle to the Trallians).

Therefore, after all this, can anyone hope to rely on their own prayers and piety, thinking that they can replace all the sacraments they need?

What Does the Expression in the 111th Word of the Venerable Ephraim the Syrian Concerning the Venerable Fathers Who Were Desert Dwellers: “They Do Not Violate the Law by Not Accepting to Hold the Priesthood” Mean? #

This means that these fathers themselves only avoided receiving ordination into the holy orders, and it does not mean that they refused to receive sanctification from priests. For the following words: “But when the honorable priests stand before the holy altar to offer the service, they are the first to stretch out their hands, receiving with faith the body of the same Lord, who is truly always present with them,” clearly indicate that they received holy communion from the priests.

source