Has There Ever Been a Time When All Bishops Fell into Error? #
New Ritualist: I have nothing to say against this. I agree that the beginning of the New Testament Church should be counted from the moment Christ shed His blood on the cross. Now, as you promised, prove that there was a time when all bishops fell into error, and the Church thus had not a single true-believing bishop. If you can prove this, then your community will be fully justified. But from what history will you prove it? That is what interests me.
Old Ritualist: I will prove it, not from some simple history or human account, but from the divine source itself—the Holy Gospel. It is written as follows:
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, who told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not (Luke 24:1-11, reading 112).
In the Gospel of Mark, we read further:
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (Mark 16:9-14, reading 71).
Thus, the apostles, chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ as the most worthy of men, who had themselves heard His teachings and seen His miracles, and who, by the power of God, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead (Matthew 10:1, reading 34), and who were granted knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4:11, reading 16; Luke 8:10, reading 35)—these apostles could fall into such a grave, blatant, and terrifying unbelief, disbelieving in Christ’s resurrection, even after Christ Himself had foretold it to them (Matthew 20:19, reading 81), and after reliable eyewitnesses testified to it. If all the apostles could fall into such an error, disbelieving in Christ’s resurrection, then it is even more possible for all bishops to err. The apostles did not believe, while the myrrh-bearing women were unwavering in their belief, not only not following the apostles’ example but boldly proclaiming the truth revealed by the angels, that Christ was risen. According to your understanding, these women were in the wrong for not following the apostles in their disbelief, while the apostles were in the right. But Christ thought otherwise: He did not justify the apostles for their actions but rebuked them, as it is written, “He upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart.” Christ did not call their actions doubt or error but outright unbelief.
New Ritualist: The apostles did not err regarding Christ’s resurrection; they only doubted. So, this incident cannot serve as proof that all bishops could fall into error.
Old Ritualist: That may be what you think and say, but the Holy Gospel and Christ Himself testify that the apostles were not merely in doubt; they outright disbelieved in Christ’s resurrection until He Himself appeared to them and “upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe” those who had seen Him risen. When the apostles merely doubted something regarding Christ, He did not rebuke them for unbelief but instead called them “of little faith.” “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26, reading 27) He said when they doubted His power over nature during the storm at sea. But when they fell into disbelief about His resurrection, He reproached them for unbelief. Christ could not have been mistaken about His disciples but called them as they truly were—and if He testified that the apostles disbelieved in His resurrection, then this is an undeniable truth. This is also understood in this way by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, he says, “When the myrrh-bearers returned from the tomb and told the apostles, they considered it as idle talk. Thus, by human nature, the miracle of the resurrection seemed incredible” (Commentary, p. 252). In Russian, this is rendered: “When they (the myrrh-bearers) returned from the tomb and told the apostles about this (the resurrection), they were regarded as telling nonsense. So, by human nature, the miracle of resurrection seemed unbelievable to people” (Commentary on Luke 24:11, p. 410).
This interpretation is consistent with the teachings of the Holy Fathers, as explained by more recent Gospel interpreters. For instance, Father I. Solovyov, explaining the disbelief of the disciples regarding Mary Magdalene’s testimony as recorded by the Evangelist Mark, writes: “This disbelief of the disciples toward Mary Magdalene cannot be understood in terms of mere weak faith, as was the case with the apostle Peter when he began to sink while walking on water, because he doubted (Matthew 14:30-31), or with the other disciples, who were unable to cast out a demon from a young boy during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:20, cf. Mark 6:6). The disbelief here equated to a complete rejection of the truthfulness of the event they were told about. The Evangelist Luke describes this disbelief towards the myrrh-bearers, saying, ’their words seemed to them as idle tales’ (Luke 24:11), which in Greek is `λῆρος,’ meaning nonsense, absurdity, or foolishness. The apostles did not distrust Mary Magdalene as a person but were so deeply rooted in their conviction of the impossibility of the resurrection that they could not believe it was real, even though they wished it to be true. Thus, to them, her words were perceived as mere empty talk, which they dismissed, as Mark recounts without bias” (Readings in Christian Enlightenment, November 1887, Book II, pp. 325-327).
Thus, from the very sense of the Gospel text and the interpretation of ancient and modern commentators of Holy Scripture, it is clear that the apostles did indeed fall into disbelief in Christ’s resurrection and remained in this state for a time. Yet you claim that the apostles did not fall into error when, in fact, they fell directly into disbelief. Disbelief is worse than error. Someone in error still believes in what he is mistaken about, albeit incorrectly; but someone in disbelief does not believe at all in what he denies.
The apostles specifically did not believe in Christ’s resurrection, as attested by Christ Himself and the evangelists, not merely doubting or erring, as you suppose.
New-Ritualist: If the apostles did not believe in Christ’s resurrection, then not all of them disbelieved. Peter and John believed. In the Gospel of Luke, after the account that the apostles did not believe the myrrh-bearing women, it says: “But Peter rose, ran to the tomb, and, stooping down, saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he went away, marveling at what had happened” (Luke 24:12, reading 113). This is further elaborated in the Gospel of John: “Then Peter went out, and the other disciple (John), and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed” (John 20:3-8, reading 63). Here is clear evidence that Peter and John believed in Christ’s resurrection, yet you say that all the apostles disbelieved.
Old-Ritualist: It is not I who say that all the apostles disbelieved in Christ’s resurrection, but the Gospel itself. I am only reading from it. You claim that Peter and John believed in Christ’s resurrection, but that is untrue; it is stated that only John believed, while of Peter it says only that he marveled at what had happened. Furthermore, it is said of John that he believed only after he came to the tomb, saw, and then believed, meaning that until that moment he did not believe in the resurrection. So how much time passed from the moment he first heard the news of Christ’s resurrection until he arrived at the tomb and entered, after Peter, and saw? In any case, it was not a matter of mere minutes.
New-Ritualist: Even if it were several hours, even if the apostles did not believe in Christ’s resurrection for the entire day, that does not justify you. You lacked a true Orthodox bishop for not just one day but a whole 180 years.
Old-Ritualist: Very well. Whether for one day or less, the apostles did remain in disbelief, but what matters is that there was indeed a period when the Church had no truly faithful bishops or apostles. Yet earlier, you asserted that the Church could not be without true bishops for even a minute. Now you concede that the Church could be without a bishop for not just a minute but an entire day; you only disagree that it could remain in such a state for 180 years. But while such a span is significant for us humans—one day versus 180 years—for God, there is no difference. There is no difference for Him between one day and 180 years or even between one day or moment and a thousand years. The Holy Prophet David declares: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). Saint Peter teaches: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8, reading 68). Thus, whether the Church was without a true bishop for one day or for 180 years, it makes no difference.
If the Church was not overcome even when all the apostles remained in disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection, then it was not overcome when all the bishops were in error from the time of Nikon to Metropolitan Ambrose. If the Old-Ritualist Church is guilty and vanquished because it was without a true bishop for a time, then by the same logic, the original New Testament Church itself, the one that existed at Christ’s time, would be guilty and vanquished, for it too had a period when it was without a single true-believing bishop or even an apostle, due to their disbelief in Christ’s resurrection. The length of this period is of no significance, as affirmed by Saint Peter and the Holy Prophet David. And just as, during the apostles’ disbelief, it was not the myrrh-bearing women who were worthy of rebuke for not following the apostles in their disbelief, but rather the apostles themselves who deserved reproach for their lack of faith—so too here: it is not the Old-Ritualists who are to be reproached for not following the errors of the bishops, but rather those bishops themselves for their errors.