The Authority of the Priest to Bind and Loose #
New Ritualist: Let it be as you argue, that the priesthood is eternal and has always been with you. But there remain other very grave offenses on your part. Since before Ambrose you had only priests without a bishop, they performed the sacrament of penance, or confession. However, this sacrament can only be performed by a bishop. The Council of Carthage, in its 43rd canon, decreed: “The penitent, in opposition to his sins, is given penance by the bishop. A presbyter, however, without his consent, may not absolve a penitent even in cases of necessity.” The interpretation states: “The bishops, having received authority from God, are to bind and loose in accordance with the severity of the sins and the repentance of the penitent. The presbyter, without the bishop’s directive, cannot either increase or reduce the penance, nor can he absolve those under penance or impart divine gifts to them if the bishop is absent (Collection of Canons). The 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles decrees: ‘Presbyters or deacons must do nothing without the will of their bishop, for the Lord’s people are entrusted to him.’ The interpretation clarifies: ‘It is not fitting for a presbyter or deacon to bind or excommunicate, increase or reduce the penance, or do anything else of this nature without the bishop’s permission. And they cannot receive the penitent or bind or loose without written authorization from the bishop, for the Lord’s people are entrusted to him, and he will answer for their souls’ (Collection of Canons). But in your case, until Ambrose, only priests performed the sacrament of penance, binding and loosing, which they had no right to do, as priests do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which belong solely to bishops. Therefore, your community, without a bishop, did not possess these keys or the authority to bind and loose.
Old Ritualist: But is this truly so? Do priests, in fact, not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or the authority to bind and loose? Let us listen to what the Holy Fathers say on this matter. St. John Chrysostom, in his book On the Priesthood, teaches:
If anyone should think… of the great honor granted to priests by the grace of the Spirit. Living on earth and leading a life in it, they have been commanded to perform things of heaven and have received authority greater than that given to angels or archangels. For it was not said to them, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Those living on earth possess the authority to bind, but only over the body. This bond, however, touches the soul itself and passes beyond the heavens. What priests accomplish below, God above confirms, and the Lord affirms the counsel of His servant. And what greater power is there than this? He said, ‘Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ What authority could be greater than this? The Father entrusted all judgment to the Son, and I see the Son entrusting it all to them (Ch. 4).
In the book The Son of the Church, we read: “Great indeed is the rank of the priesthood; it is the apostolic inheritance, and for this reason, they are given authority over human souls by God, whom they may bind and loose” (Book called The Son of the Church). In On Faith, it is written: “The Pope of Rome is not Peter’s successor in all things, but only in this: to bind and loose, baptize, and teach, which every priest must also do” (Ch. 20, p. 183). In the Trebnik, in the order for the burial of priests, it is stated: “For the Lord said to His apostles: ‘Whomsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whomsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again, the same power and grace of the Holy Spirit was given by God to patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and all priests to bind and loose those who fall into sins (absolution prayer).”
St. John Chrysostom teaches: “The priest has exempted himself: he has no other life, but he lives in the church. Let them, he said, esteem them exceedingly in love for their work’s sake… For it is by them that you are born to eternal birth, and through them you obtain the kingdom. Through their hands, everything happens; through them, the gates of heaven are opened for you. (In the margin: ‘The priests have the keys, for they open the gates of heaven’). Let no one argue or quarrel. Whoever loves Christ will love the priest, for it is through him that he receives the dread mysteries” (Homilies on the Epistles, Homily 10 on the Epistle to the Thessalonians, p. 2288).
And yet, you assert without hesitation that priests do not have the authority to bind and loose, nor the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Does this not contradict the teaching of the Holy Fathers? Indeed, you not only contradict this teaching but also accuse your own church. You forget that in your church, most confessions are heard by priests, not bishops. Therefore, all your church’s followers are seeking forgiveness for sins from their priests in vain, as, according to your words, priests do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven or the authority to bind and loose. Consequently, all followers of your church remain without absolution and forgiveness of sins. Poor people! Poor church!
New Ritualist: But our priests receive authority to hear confessions by the will or command of their bishops. But your priests did this without the bishop’s will.
Old Ritualist: But that does not justify, but only accuses, your church. If your bishops command people who, by your account, lack this authority to bind and loose, they become transgressors of God’s commandments by allowing and even commanding your priests to seize what has not been given to them.
New Ritualist: No, – priests do have the authority to bind and loose, and thus the bishops allow them to do so.
Old Ritualist: If priests have the authority to bind and loose, then why do they need permission for it? Granting permission to someone who already has the authority to do something is, at the very least, strange.
New Ritualist: But this permission is not doctrinal; it is disciplinary, required only for order and propriety in the church.
Old Ritualist: Quite correct. But in the church, discipline – that is, the formal subordination of juniors to seniors – is to be upheld only when the latter remain in orthodoxy. Otherwise, established relations must necessarily change, and subordinates must correct the teachers of false doctrine (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 744), not submit to them or act at their will. In general, the Third Ecumenical Council decreed, “We decree that clergy who are of one mind with the Orthodox and universal council should never in any way be subject to those who have departed or are departing from Orthodoxy” (Canon 3 in the complete translation). The Seventh Ecumenical Council interpreted this decree to apply for all future times: “now or afterward, at any time whatsoever” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7; First Act).
How then can you demand that Old Believer priests be subordinate to the bishops who departed with Nikon, when the Holy Fathers strictly forbid this? The Holy Fathers rightly said, “Even what is good, if received out of due time, is turned to evil, not from its nature but from the indiscretion of the recipients. We therefore take heed that every scripture be received in its proper time, and not untimely” (The Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 2, p. 14).
New Ritualist: But I did not speak without basis; I cited the 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 43rd of the Council of Carthage, which require the subordination of priests to bishops, thus accusing your priests who were not subject to bishops.
Old Ritualist: But if one examines these canons impartially, they do not in any way accuse the Old Believer priests. The 39th apostolic canon speaks not of priests doing nothing without the will of any bishop, but only without the will of an Orthodox bishop. Since the time of Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, such bishops were absent; therefore, the Old Believer priests had no one to whom they could submit.
And a priest should only refrain from acting without the will of an Orthodox bishop if he is constantly with the bishop, not one who lives far from the bishop and therefore cannot seek permission for every act entrusted to his authority.
New Ritualist: But the canons are binding for all priests. Therefore, any priest, regardless of how far he is from his bishop, has no right to act without his will.
Old Ritualist: But is this practical in reality, and do your priests follow it? If, for example, one of your priests is five hundred versts away from his bishop and needs to celebrate the liturgy, is he required to travel to the bishop to ask permission? And after he returns and serves the liturgy, suppose someone then appears and asks to confess. According to your rule, the priest would again have to travel five hundred versts to seek permission to hear the confession. And this would have to happen always and without fail. Can you say that this makes any sense, or that your 39th apostolic canon is followed in this way, as you demand?
New Ritualist: No, – a priest does not need to travel to the bishop every time he needs permission to perform sacraments and mysteries. Instead, this permission is granted to him once and for all at his ordination. In the interpretation of the 39th apostolic canon, it is said that priests are not always required to act with the will of the bishop, but only if they do not receive a written directive from him. This written directive is the so-called ordination certificate given by bishops to presbyters, outlining the rights of the presbyterial office. It permits the presbyter to perform all church rites and to bind and loose the consciences of those confessing their sins prudently, while bringing only the more serious and complex cases to the bishop’s attention (Course on Ecclesiastical Law, vol. 1, note 248, p. 186). And as these certificates are issued at ordination for the priest’s lifetime, our priests act according to the bishop’s will without making the impractical journeys you describe.
Old Ritualist: All this is fine and reasonable. But what is an ordination certificate: a sacred object or something else? Please explain.
New Ritualist: It is simply a testimonial or proof of identity for the priest; in today’s terms, a “priestly passport.”
Old Ritualist: So then, the entire matter, the entire command of the bishop, and all your accusations against the Old Believer priests boil down to a matter of discipline and, ultimately, to a simple ordination certificate, a form of identification. But Old Believer priests had ordination certificates, and their identities were always verified; otherwise, the Old Believers would not have accepted them. As for discipline, or formal submission to bishops, as shown above, in the absence of Orthodox bishops, they had neither the ability nor the duty to observe it. This is also supported by the 43rd canon of the Council of Carthage, which you read in an abbreviated translation that does not fully express the canon’s meaning. In full translations, it reads as follows: “The period of penance for the penitent, according to the gravity of their sins, should be set by the judgment of bishops. However, a presbyter without the bishop’s consent may not absolve a penitent, except in cases of urgent need when the bishop is absent” (canon 52 in the full translation).
If a priest does not receive a penitent under the pretense that he lacks permission from the bishop, he bears grave responsibility. In the book Zonaras, Canons of the Holy Fathers, Apostles, and Councils, we read: “If someone is on their deathbed and calls a priest to confess, and the priest does not come, saying, ‘I have no permission from the bishop to receive children, I dare not do it,’ and if the person dies unconfessed, the priest bears the sin. For he did not heed the scripture that says, ‘Do not turn away one who comes to you or trouble his spirit.’ Foolish priest, you rightly say you lack permission, but for the sake of necessity, take in one who seeks you, for God’s sake. For this, let the priest repent for three years, standing with bows” (ch. 90, p. 6, second column). And the 52nd apostolic canon condemns such priests even more strictly, stating: “A hierarch, that is, a bishop or presbyter, who does not receive one turning from sin but instead rejects them, shall be deposed. The interpretation: Whoever does not receive a penitent turning from sin acts contrary to Christ our God. Acting contrary to Him and opposing His commandments, he is not His disciple. And if he is not His disciple, he is not worthy to serve Him. For how can he serve, having made himself antichrist and opposing the will of Christ? He shall be deposed” (Kormchaia).
Is it not clear that both the bishop and the priest not only have the right but are positively obligated to perform the sacrament of penance? Anyone acting otherwise becomes an antichrist. Yet you seek to make all priests into such, claiming that they have no right and therefore should not bind and loose. And all this—why? Merely to find any means to accuse the Old Believer Church, asserting that even with priests, it did not possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But, as shown, the Holy Fathers testify that priests also hold these keys, the authority to bind and loose.