Does Deposition of Clergy Abolish the Priesthood? #
New Ritualist: If, as you say, the priesthood is so eternal that nothing—neither sins nor heresies—can destroy it, then why are priests and bishops deposed or removed from office if they commit a crime? If the priesthood is truly indestructible, then there should be no need to prohibit or depose clergy when they are guilty. Since the holy fathers have decreed the deposition of the guilty, it is evident that the priesthood can indeed be abolished.
Old Ritualist: If the priesthood were destroyed by the deposition of a priest, it would mean it is not eternal, and then the Priestless factions would be right in having none of it. But all the holy fathers teach consistently that the priesthood is eternal; therefore, it is not destroyed by the deposition of a priest from office. For greater clarity, and to show how deposition does not negate the eternity of the priesthood, I’ll read from the work of Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna titled On the History of the Question of Receiving Schismatics into the Orthodox Church. In this work, after discussing the nature of the priesthood, it states: “Thus, according to these determinations, deposition does not take away or abolish the grace of the priesthood, whose creator is the Holy Spirit Himself; rather, it suspends and restricts its function, which St.@ Basil the Great refers to as removal from service in his 51st canon, for “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable,” as the Apostle says (Romans 11:29). The Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the voice of St.@ Tarasius, declares once more the truth of God’s voice, that the children shall not die for the sins of their fathers, and that ordination is from God” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7). The Donatists were solemnly condemned by two local councils: one held in Rome in 313, and another larger one in Arles in 314. When in 411 a multitude of bishops and laypeople from the Donatists reunited with the Catholic Church, the clergy retained their ranks. St.@ Basil the Great was so convinced that a properly conferred ordination should never be repeated that he disbelieved the rumor that the Arian bishop Eustathius of Sebaste had reordained some clergy and condemned him for such a bold and unprecedented act among heretics, if the report was indeed true and not slanderous. In his 51st canon, in line with canonical principles, he more precisely defines the concept of deposition, writing: The canons regarding clergy are set indiscriminately. They command a single penalty for the fallen: removal from service, whether they hold a rank of priesthood or serve in a role without priestly ordination.
Joseph Bryennius, in his second letter to the priest Niketas, writes: “Consider the Italian priests, and foremost their leader, as deposed by all the fathers; but as for the sacraments they performed, believe them to be holy and complete, just as the sacraments performed by deposed priests among us.” Likewise, the eminent Archbishop Eugene Bulgaris of Astrakhan, examining this question with his characteristic depth, writes:
Deposition is nothing other than removal from sacred service, and it is precisely for this reason that there exists a continuous and lifelong prohibition (i.e., for those who have committed crimes and are canonically barred from the priesthood), differing from suspension only in that the latter is imposed on offenders for a set time, after which they are reinstated, while deposition lasts for life without hope of reinstatement. However, this does not at all erase the priesthood itself; the priesthood remains indelible and, in essence, indestructible. Just as a suspended cleric, performing sacraments contrary to his penalty, incurs a greater penance for himself, yet the offerings he makes are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, even if all our priests, according to canonical decrees, were subject to deposition, we must honestly say that they bring upon themselves the severest punishment in the next life, but we do not believe that their actions leave the sacraments unsanctified by the Spirit; rather, we affirm that He sanctifies the sacraments and grants His grace to those who approach with reverence and faith. To doubt this, as Nicholas Cabasilas says (Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, ch. 46), would be to think that the priest controls the offering of these gifts. All of this is confirmed by the previously mentioned conciliar decision against Bishop Leontius of Balbus, through the Church’s acceptance of and recognition of the priesthood of bishops and other clergy ordained by the deposed Meletius and Peter Mongus, as well as the numerous examples of deposed bishops restored either to their own or other sees without reordination—a practice seen in the Church, not only in ancient and recent times but even in the most recent history.
Furthermore, it should be noted that during ordination, a sacred act takes place through which the gift of priesthood is conferred from above. Deposition, however, is not a sacrament but a simple administrative act that formalizes the removal from service and thereby suspends the performance of priestly duties based on the reasons listed in the act of deposition (On the History of the Question of Receiving Schismatics, pp. 17–20).