Examination of Testimonies from the Holy Fathers on Whether Bishops Can Err #
New Ritualist: Besides the testimonies from Holy Scripture I presented, I have numerous proofs from the teachings of the holy fathers that bishops as a whole can never fall into heresy. You must know, as St. Cyprian says, “The bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop; and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the church” (Letter 56). St. John Chrysostom also says, “The church of Christ cannot be without a bishop” (Margarit, fol. 154 verso). According to Simeon of Thessalonica, “Apart from the bishop, there is no sacrifice, no priest, no altar, no ordination, nor holy chrism, nor indeed any Christians: through him comes true Christianity and all the mysteries of Christ” (Works, Book 1, Chapter 77). Finally, St. Ignatius the God-bearer testifies that all who are not with the bishop “do not work in Christ’s vineyard but are sowing the enemy’s seed and serving the devil” (Letter to the Philadelphians).
From this, it is clear that all bishops can never fall into heresy, and those who separate from the bishop are not only outside the church but are sowing seeds of enmity and serving the devil. Those who separate from bishops sin gravely, transgressing the commandments of God and the teachings of the holy fathers. All of this directly accuses you, the schismatics.
Old Ritualist: Let me read from the very church fathers that you cited. Here are the words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer from his Letter to the Ephesians: “Every man, having received the power of discernment from God, will be condemned if he follows an incompetent shepherd and accepts false teaching as if it were true” (Letter to the Ephesians). From his Letter to the Philadelphians: “Brethren, do not be deceived; if anyone follows one who has deviated from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if anyone does not separate himself from a false preacher, he shall be condemned to Gehenna. For it is improper to abandon the pious, nor should we commune with the impious” (Letter to the Philadelphians). In his Letter to the Deacon Heron, he writes: “Anyone who speaks apart from what has been commanded, even if he appears reliable, even if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he performs signs, even if he prophesies, let him seem to you like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, bringing destruction to the sheep.”
St. Cyprian the holy martyr writes:
Let the people not deceive themselves by thinking they can be free from sinful corruption by remaining in communion with a sinful priest and by consenting to the wrongful and illegitimate episcopacy of their superior. With the warning given through the prophet Hosea—‘Their sacrifices will be to them as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be defiled’ (Hosea 9:4)—the divine judgment teaches and shows that everyone becomes guilty who is defiled by the offering of an impure and unrighteous priest. The same is shown in the book of Numbers when Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who rebelled against the priest Aaron, claimed the right to offer sacrifices. There, God commanded the people through Moses to separate themselves from them so that they would not be infected by the same wickedness. ‘Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye perish in all their sins’ (Numbers 16:26). Therefore, the people who obey God’s commandments and fear Him must separate themselves from a sinful superior and not participate in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they have the power to choose worthy priests and to depose the unworthy (Works, vol. 1, Letter 56, pp. 315-316).
Furthermore, according to the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, “It is better to be led by none than to be led by an evil leader (a heretic)” (Homily 34 on Hebrews).
So what does this mean? The same holy fathers and church teachers, guided by the same Holy Spirit, say that he who is not with the bishop is not in the church—and that he who is with the bishop, if that bishop is sinful or heretical, shares in his sin and is defiled. They say that those who are not with the bishop are not part of Christ’s vineyard but instead are sowing the seeds of the enemy—and yet they also say that he who follows a false bishop will be condemned to Gehenna and will not inherit the kingdom of God. How can one make sense of this? If one does not heed the bishop or separates from him, he is at fault; and if one does heed him, he is also at fault. Is there not a contradiction in the teaching of the holy fathers?
New Ritualist: There is no contradiction here. The holy fathers teach that one should obey only Orthodox bishops, while heretical ones should not be listened to; from them, one must separate and distance oneself. Whoever follows heretical bishops will be condemned to Gehenna.
Old Ritualist: Precisely. Now prove that the bishops from the Council of 1666-67 until Metropolitan Ambrose joined us in 1846 were entirely Orthodox. If you can prove that, then we will be guilty; but if not, then we are in the right.
New Ritualist: I see you want to accuse our Orthodox church of heresies to avoid the topic at hand, but I won’t allow it.
Old Ritualist: You needn’t worry. I am not accusing you now (since that is not the point of our discussion) and will not stray from the topic, even if you desire it. I am simply trying to clarify the truth more quickly by asking: were there fully Orthodox bishops during that period—those who upheld, without the slightest alteration, the doctrines, traditions, faith, and practices that existed in the Orthodox church before Patriarch Nikon and which the Old Ritualists have maintained since his time?
New Ritualist: There were no such bishops during the period you mentioned, as everyone knows.
Old Ritualist: In that case, the holy fathers you cited do not condemn us; rather, they clearly justify us. For as insistently as they command obedience to Orthodox bishops, they just as strictly forbid listening to heretical ones. Therefore, the Old Ritualists would only be guilty if the bishops from Nikon’s time until Metropolitan Ambrose had been Orthodox, or if the holy fathers had required submission to bishops without regard to whether they were heretics or Orthodox—then we would indeed be guilty. But you yourself have admitted that the holy fathers forbid communion with heretical bishops, and there were no Orthodox bishops until Metropolitan Ambrose. Consequently, the Old Ritualist church was entirely justified in not having bishops, according to the teachings of the holy fathers you referenced.
This provides a general response to all the evidence you presented to support your erroneous view of the infallibility of bishops and to accuse the Old Ritualist church. Now, let us examine each statement separately.
St. Cyprian’s declaration that “the bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop” was made in defense of himself against an unjust accusation by a certain Pupianus, and it means that the church is only within the bishop who himself remains within the church by upholding the Orthodox faith. But a bishop who is not in the church, having fallen into heresy, obviously does not contain the church within himself. This is shown by St. Cyprian himself, who calls heretical bishops “false bishops” and describes those who commune with them as “children of the devil and full of deceit” (Works, vol. 1, p. 260, Letter 47), for they become participants in their ungodliness (Letter 56). However, the church of Christ is present not only in every Orthodox bishop but also in every Orthodox Christian; indeed, more so: every Orthodox layperson is themselves a church, as the holy Apostle Paul says: “Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (2 Corinthians 6:16, reading 182). Therefore, as laypeople and priests who separate from an Orthodox bishop are lost, so too are bishops who fall away from their Orthodox flock.
St. Gregory the Dialogist teaches: “Let us listen to what is said by the voice of the blessed Job: ‘If my land cries out against me, and all its furrows are wet with tears; if I have eaten its yield without payment’ (Job 31:38-39). For the land cries out against its master when the church justly rises against its shepherd” (Homily 17, Book 1, pp. 159-160). Elsewhere we read: “This, indeed, is to lay down one’s life for the sheep; the shepherd will rejoice and be glad at the Last Judgment over his sheep. He will rejoice if he finds them all sound, not fallen away; but if they have fallen away, he will be most severely punished. And if the shepherds themselves are found to have fallen away, what will they say to the Shepherd of the flock (Christ), for they have separated from the sheep! They will be found unfaithful; for it is unfaithful for a shepherd to abandon his sheep, especially if he suffers punishment for his lies” (Pandects of Ancient Writings, ch. 122).
Thus, even bishops are guilty and cease to contain the church within themselves if they fall away from their Orthodox Christian flock, which is the church of the living God. This is exactly what happened in Nikon’s time when bishops departed from the Orthodox Christians. Therefore, the statement you cited from St. Cyprian does not condemn the Old Ritualist church but rather justifies it. Instead, it condemns your church by showing that it has bishops who do not have the church, for they have departed from it through their heresies.
The expression from St. John Chrysostom that “the church cannot be without a bishop,” which you cited, does not prove that bishops cannot fall into heresy or that the church cannot temporarily exist without them. He said this in connection with his own exile from Constantinople, referring only to the church there and the circumstances that would inevitably follow his departure from the city—that is, that someone would be chosen and placed in his stead—and nothing more. To understand Chrysostom’s words correctly, let us read them in their context. Here they are:
He (John Chrysostom, upon being condemned to exile) said to them (the deaconesses), “Come here, daughters, and listen to me. I see now that my end is near, that I have completed my course, and I do not think that you will see my face again. But this is what I ask of you: do not allow anyone to separate you from the church as you are accustomed. And whoever is appointed in the church by necessity or by the counsel of all, obey him as you would me, for the church cannot be without a bishop, and thus you will receive grace from God” (Life of St. John Chrysostom, fol. 154 verso).
For greater clarity, let us provide this in Russian translation: He (Chrysostom) said to them (the deaconesses): “Come closer, my daughters, and listen carefully to me. Concerning myself, I feel that everything is finished; my path is complete; perhaps you will not see my face again. I give you just one request: let no one among you abandon the respect that is owed to the church. Whoever is elevated to this throne with the consent of all, without intrigue or ambition, will be my successor: obey him as you would me, for the church cannot remain without a bishop” (Saint John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia, by A. Thierry, p. 247).
Is there even a hint here of the false teaching that bishops cannot fall into heresy and that if they do, it is not they but Orthodox Christians who separate from them who lose grace simply for refusing to follow heretical bishops? No; St. John Chrysostom simply said that after him, a successor would be appointed to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople because such a great church as that of Constantinople cannot be left without a bishop—and nothing more. Why must this be so? Because without a bishop, the church would perish, vanish, cease to exist, and no longer be a church? Or because God would ensure that they have a worthy bishop? No—it’s simply because people would inevitably choose and appoint a replacement. But should they obey any bishop who is chosen and placed after Chrysostom, regardless of who and how? No; he advises obedience only to one “elevated by necessity or with the counsel of all,” meaning with general consent, without intrigue or ambition. If Chrysostom’s successor were not chosen in this way, he should not be obeyed, and the church, in that case, cannot have a bishop and may or even must remain without one.
This meaning is proven by what actually happened. When Chrysostom was exiled, Arsacius was elevated to the throne of the church of Constantinople, not by common consent, nor by necessity or the counsel of all, but by the decree of Empress Eudoxia, a determined and implacable enemy of St. John Chrysostom. Chrysostom’s followers, friends, and adherents, who had personally heard him say that they must submit and obey his successor and that the church cannot be without a bishop, did not obey this successor Arsacius; they broke off all communion with him, remained without a bishop, and thus proved that the church could and did exist without a bishop—the very church, in fact, about which Chrysostom had said it could not be without a bishop. And what happened? St. John Chrysostom not only did not rebuke his followers or accuse them of not fulfilling his instructions, but he also praised them with high commendations, speaking of them as follows: “Who would deny the title of martyrs to people who bear suffering to uphold the teachings of the church, comforting this holy mother in the distress of the weak who abandon her in such great numbers? One man fulfilling the will of God is worth more than ten thousand who transgress it” (Saint John Chrysostom and Eudoxia, by Thierry, p. 389).
Regarding his successor Arsacius, Chrysostom wrote: “I have heard of that lascivious Arsacius, whom the empress has seated upon my throne, who has gravely offended the brothers and the virgins unwilling to commune with him, and many died in prison for my sake. For he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who has taken on the appearance of a bishop, but is a fornicator. Just as a woman who joins herself to another while her husband lives is called an adulteress, so too is he an adulterer—not of the flesh, but of the spirit, for while I live, he has stolen my throne” (Margarit, Life of Chrysostom, fol. 199 verso, and Prolog, Jan. 27).
Therefore, according to Chrysostom’s teaching, those who did not obey his successor—even unto bloodshed—and continued their worship without a bishop, which supposedly the church could not be without, deserve to be called martyrs, upholding the teachings of the church by refusing to follow an unlawful bishop. And those who remained with Chrysostom’s successor, Arsacius, St. Chrysostom condemns as transgressors of God’s will, as people who renounce the Orthodox faith. Why? Because Arsacius unlawfully seized the episcopal throne and turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a spiritual adulterer. Therefore, those at fault were not the ones who refused to follow him and remained without a bishop, but rather those who stayed with him.
According to your logic, however, those who remained without a bishop were at fault, while those who were with a bishop were not. By your reasoning, the followers of Arsacius were blameless, while the followers of Chrysostom, including Chrysostom himself, were guilty for justifying those who remained without a bishop and did not follow his successor. This is the outcome of your teaching and the contradictions it leads to! We Old Ritualists, however, understand Chrysostom’s words as he himself understood them, and we observe them as his immediate followers did—believing that we should follow only lawful Orthodox bishops and not follow unlawful, heretical bishops under any circumstances. We do not follow them, recognizing, in agreement with Chrysostom, that the church at fault is not the one that refuses to follow heretical bishops and remains without a bishop, but rather the one that has heretical bishops. Therefore, the Old Ritualist church is not at fault; rather, it is your New Ritualist church that is.
New Ritualist: Chrysostom’s followers were not without a bishop. They had Chrysostom himself, who continued to lead them and sent them letters even while in exile. But your schismatic church had no bishop at all—there was not a single bishop among you. So this example does not apply to you.
Old Ritualist: First of all, the statement by Chrysostom that one should obey a bishop and that the church cannot be without him was not made in reference to himself but to his successor—the bishop who would take his place on the throne of the church in Constantinople. He was speaking about the duty to listen to that successor and that without him, the church could not be. Yet, Chrysostom’s followers did not listen to this bishop and thus remained without one. Therefore, if they, as you say, did not obey his successor and did not recognize him as their bishop, instead remaining under Chrysostom who was in exile, they are still guilty of violating Chrysostom’s statement that the church cannot be without a bishop, if it is interpreted as you understand it. Chrysostom did not say that he would continue as their bishop after his exile or that they should obey and be governed by him while he was banished; rather, he instructed them to obey whoever would be appointed after him, “for the church (of Constantinople) cannot remain without a bishop.”
Secondly, St. John Chrysostom taught that clergy and laypeople who did not submit to Bishop Arsacius should and were even required to hold services, pray, and govern themselves independently—without a bishop. Here is what he wrote to them: “If the bishop is not among his flock to guide them, let the sheep themselves take on the duties of a shepherd. The timid, who use this as a pretext (the lack of a bishop) to withdraw from gatherings, betray the duty of faith. Did Daniel and the captive Jews in Babylon need an altar, temple, or high priest to fulfill the law?” (St. John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia, p. 389). It is clear that the Orthodox Christians of the church in Constantinople, having broken communion with their local bishop, had no bishop to lead or govern them and thus had to take on pastoral duties and govern themselves without a bishop, for which Chrysostom likened them to Daniel and other pious Jews who were in captivity without a high priest. Those who refused to commune with them on the pretext that they did not have a bishop, Chrysostom directly called “traitors to the faith.” All this serves as a perfect justification for the Old Believer church, which, like the church of Constantinople, had no bishop for a time, so that the sheep were sometimes forced to take on the duties of a shepherd, governing themselves independently of bishops who had fallen away from Orthodoxy.
New Ritualist: When Chrysostom was in exile, and an unlawful bishop, Arsacius, was on the throne of Constantinople, there were lawful and Orthodox bishops in other places and lands. But from the time of Patriarch Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, you had no bishop anywhere. So, the example of the Constantinopolitan Christians who did not submit to Arsacius does not justify you at all.
Old Ritualist: On the contrary, this example completely justifies the Old Believers. If in those times, when there were many lawful and Orthodox bishops, St. John Chrysostom did not advise those Christians who lacked a bishop to submit to any other bishop but insisted that the sheep should take on the duties of a shepherd, and if the Orthodox who separated from their bishop Arsacius were right not to submit to any bishop and performed services with priests alone, without any episcopal oversight, leadership, or blessing, then how much more justified are the Old Believers, who acted similarly in a time when there were no Orthodox bishops anywhere. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that when Chrysostom said that the church could not remain without a bishop, he meant not other bishops in different lands, but specifically the one bishop in Constantinople, who was to be chosen as his successor. This is evident from Chrysostom’s own words we read earlier, which are so clearly about the church in Constantinople that even the historian Zachary Kopystensky interprets them this way. He says:
The divine Chrysostom, on his way to exile, said to his deaconesses, ‘Whoever is chosen (in my stead as bishop) without any self-seeking ambition, with the consent of all, submit to him as to me, John. For I know that the church cannot be without a bishop. If he had not been appointed in the capital, certainly another would have been placed in his stead, for the church of Constantinople could not be without a shepherd’ (Polynodiya, part 2, section 9, article 5; Russian Historical Library, vol. 4, book 1, pp. 744-745).
It is clear that Chrysostom’s statement, “the church cannot be without a bishop,” applies only to the church of Constantinople and to the specific bishop who was to succeed him. But when this successor turned out to be unworthy and unlawful, then the true Orthodox Christian church in Constantinople broke off all communion with him, thus remaining without a bishop, yet it was in no way deprived of Orthodoxy or of the qualities of the church of Christ. This fully justifies the Old Believer church, which was also without bishops for a time, precisely because those available were uncanonical and non-Orthodox.
New Ritualist: I agree that Chrysostom’s statement, “the church cannot be without a bishop,” pertains specifically to the local church of Constantinople. However, I believe it can also apply to the universal church. If the local church cannot be without a bishop, then even more so the universal church.
Old Ritualist: But this only further justifies the Old Believer church. If Chrysostom said that the church of Constantinople could not be without a bishop, yet this did not hold true because the church in the persons of Chrysostom’s followers and adherents remained without a bishop, as the one available was unworthy and unlawful—one whom the Orthodox did not obey—then if this statement is applied to the universal church, it also does not have to hold universally. It cannot be said that it was entirely unfulfilled regarding the church of Constantinople; the church indeed was not without a bishop, but this bishop was unworthy, a lawbreaker, with whom true Orthodox believers had no ecclesiastical communion and thus remained without a bishop. Therefore, if this statement is applied to the universal church, then after Nikon, bishops were indeed present, but they were unlawful—heretical bishops with whom true Orthodox believers were by no means required to have ecclesiastical communion and did not until their repentance.
Thus, Chrysostom’s statement that the church cannot remain without a bishop—just as it justified the Orthodox in the church of Constantinople who remained without a bishop with only priests—equally justifies the Old Believers who were in a similar situation for some time. This is, of course, if we interpret this statement within the context of his other words, rather than in isolation as you do, and understand it as those who followed it during Chrysostom’s time did, as he himself intended.
The words of Simeon of Thessalonica, stating that “without a bishop, neither priest, nor altar, nor ordination, nor holy chrism, nor even Christians,” also do not imply that bishops are incapable of falling into heresy or that if they do, the Orthodox Church, which does not follow them, loses its Orthodoxy and the faithful cease to be Christians. No, the words of the blessed Simeon merely indicate that the bishop performs, or rather, enables all actions in the church, including baptism, chrismation, and other sacraments, not by himself but through the priest and through holy chrism. Without his ordination and chrism, these sacraments cannot be performed. This is why he says, “without the bishop, there are no Christians.” If someone has received ordination as a priest from a bishop, then he is authorized, and even obligated, to perform baptism, chrismation, the Liturgy, and all other sacraments and services. With this, the presence of Christians, the church, and the salvation of the faithful are ensured.
To clarify that we are correctly interpreting the statement by Simeon of Thessalonica, let us read all of chapter 77, from which you have selectively taken some words to support your claim that bishops supposedly cannot fall into heresy, or if they do, that the Christians who do not follow them cease to be Christians. Let us also look at the preceding chapter, which provides context to chapter 77; this will make the intent of Blessed Simeon even clearer. Chapter 76 reads:
Thus, the bishop embraces the seven-fold ministry, corresponding to the divine acts: these are baptism, chrismation, the seal of the reader, ordination of the subdeacon, ordination of the deacon, priest, and bishop. In all of these, the bishop has the granting grace; that is why only one ordination and chrismation is performed by him, and in all things the bishop acts as God’s grace-filled representative, for he is the high priest and, through the priests and other clerics, performs the mysteries.
And chapter 77 continues:
For from the bishop alone comes chrism and ordination, and through these two (ordination and chrism) the bishop’s grace reaches all the mysteries. If a priest lacks ordination, he cannot perform any ministry or sacred act; ordination comes from the bishop, and thus the bishop’s power operates everywhere. Likewise, a priest cannot serve without an altar, which is consecrated with chrism; this chrism, too, is consecrated by the bishop. Therefore, apart from the bishop, there is no sacrifice, no priest, no altar, all of these being through the bishop. No one can baptize without ordination from the bishop, and no one can baptize without chrism from the bishop. In this way, the bishop’s grace operates in all the mysteries and, without him, there is no altar, no ordination, no holy chrism, no baptism, and, indeed, no Christians; through the bishop, true Christianity and all its mysteries come into being.
Is it not clear that Simeon’s statement, “without the bishop, there is no altar, no priest, etc.”, does not imply that bishops are incapable of heresy or that if they do fall, then it is not their fault but that the Orthodox, who maintain their faith, cease to be Christians for not following them? Blessed Simeon is only emphasizing that, through chrism and ordination, the bishop’s authority permeates every sacrament, with the episcopate—or episcopal grace—acting through the priest who received ordination and chrism. Consequently, if a priest conducts a sacrament or service, the bishop’s grace is indeed at work.
However, according to church rules (Canon 3 of the Third Ecumenical Council and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council), even if a bishop errs, priests still have the right, and indeed the obligation, to continue performing all the services entrusted to them. In such cases, their services are still recognized as lawful and effective, which means episcopal authority is active through them.
Thus, Simeon of Thessalonica’s teaching on the episcopate itself demonstrates that the Old Believer church, even in times without a bishop, maintained episcopal authority in all sacraments, as it continued to have holy chrism and priests ordained by bishops. According to the blessed Simeon’s teaching, “through these two: ordination and chrism, episcopal grace reaches and acts in all mysteries.”
If some Old Believer priests, ordained by bishops who had fallen into heresy, continued their ministry, we should remember that the holy councils make no distinction between a priest ordained by an Orthodox bishop and one ordained by a heretical bishop, provided that the latter returns to Orthodoxy. They grant such a priest the same rights and impose upon him the same obligations as those upon priests ordained by Orthodox bishops, as seen in Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 69 of the Council of Carthage, which confirm that clerics returning from heresy retain their office.
Therefore, the words of Simeon of Thessalonica, which you cited to condemn the Old Believer Church, do not only fail to condemn it but actually justify it, showing that it retained episcopal grace and authority in all its sacraments. This is because, in the priest’s sacramental acts, the episcopal authority is present. The Old Believer Church has always had priests, and thus, in all their sacramental acts as lawful and legitimate priests, episcopal authority was at work. Therefore, for one hundred and eighty years, we indeed had episcopal authority within all our sacraments and rites.
Furthermore, it should be noted that your own church interprets the words of Simeon of Thessalonica quite differently than you and your missionaries do. It acknowledges that Christians can exist without a bishop. This is demonstrated by its very actions since it has received Old Believers who come to it through only chrismation, not re-baptism. If your church regarded us as non-Christians, it would not receive us as Christians but would baptize us anew, as it would pagans or Muslims, according to the sacred canons. But instead, it receives Old Believers as Christians, albeit not belonging to it. Therefore, by calling us non-Christians, you are only accusing your own church.
The words you cited from Ignatius the God-Bearer—that those who are not with the bishop are not the field of Christ but the enemy’s seed and work for the devil—do not at all condemn the Old Believers. St. Ignatius spoke of the heretics of his time, in the second century, who rejected the entire hierarchical order of the church: bishops, priests, and deacons. History records this as follows: “Ignatius urges the Trallians (in his letter to them) to honor the bishop as they would Jesus Christ, the priestly rank as they would the apostolic assembly, and the deacons as servants of the church. The persistence with which the Antiochian hierarch (Ignatius) made these exhortations serves as evidence that heretics were trying to convince the faithful that the apostolic authority had not passed on to those now governing the church” (Church History by Vladimir Guetee, vol. 1, p. 382). But as is well known, the Old Believers have never held, nor do they hold, any such false teaching. Therefore, Ignatius’s words condemning heretics who rejected church hierarchy do not apply to them. If the Old Believers lacked a bishop, it was solely because bishops had fallen away from Orthodoxy. In this regard, the same St. Ignatius justifies them, saying: “Every person who has received the gift of reason from God will be judged if he follows an unworthy pastor and accepts false teaching as if it were true” (Letter to the Ephesians). Elsewhere he says, “One should not abandon the pious, nor join with the wicked” (Letter to the Philadelphians). Thus, those who disobey Orthodox bishops are as guilty as those who obey heretical ones. The Old Believer Church broke communion with bishops who had fallen into heresy, not with the Orthodox, and therefore, St. Ignatius’s teaching does not condemn it but rather justifies it.
If anything, his teaching condemns you, the New Ritualists, including the current fugitive priests and priestless groups. It accuses you of submitting to your heretical bishops rather than following the Orthodox hierarchy as it existed before Nikon, or even those Orthodox now within the Old Believer Church. Meanwhile, the priestless and fugitive priests merely separate from the heretical hierarchs of your church but do not follow the Orthodox hierarchs of the Belokrinitskaya Metropolia. In this way, the Old Believer Church, which possesses the Orthodox hierarchy of that Metropolia, fully follows the teachings of Ignatius the God-Bearer and the holy fathers on bishops, submitting to Orthodox bishops and not following heretical ones. In contrast, the priestless and fugitive priests only fulfill this teaching halfway—they separate from the heretical bishops of the New Ritualist Church but do not follow the Orthodox bishops of the Old Believer Church. As for you, New Ritualists, you fail to fulfill St. Ignatius’s teaching at all, acting entirely against it by submitting to heretical bishops and not associating with truly Orthodox bishops.