The Eyes of the Church #
New Ritualist: I agree that bishops are not the head of the church but only members—specifically, the eyes of the church. But this gives you no comfort. For one hundred and eighty years, you had no bishop, and therefore, no eyes. Thus, your church is blind, as indeed it says in the book On Faith: a church without a bishop is blind (fol. 213).
Old Ritualist: And what of it? Does a blind church cease to be Christ’s church? A blind person does not cease to be human; although blind, he is still a person, not an animal. So too, a church, though blind, remains a church; it cannot be called anything else. A blind church is not the same as a heretical one. To prove this, let me read from the On Faith, the very book you referenced. It states regarding the blind church in Little Russia when its bishops turned to union with Rome and fell into heresy: “Our holy church, having lost the metropolitan and Orthodox bishops, whom Jesus Christ Himself called the eyes of the body, was blind, like a body without eyes” (ch. 23, fol. 213). Here, the blind church is called holy, not heretical. Clearly, a blind church can be a holy, Orthodox church.
However, let me add a clarification: I conditionally agreed with you that the Old Ritualist church was blind during its time without Orthodox bishops. In reality, it was not entirely blind during that period. First, because the true and essential light of the church is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who said of Himself, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12, reading 29)—and all the more so of the church; He is the true light that enlightens not only His church but every person who comes into the world (John 1:9, reading 1). And secondly, because the eyes of the church are not only bishops but also priests, as written in the Kormchaia, chapter 60, and in the works of St. Athanasius the Great, “Bishops and priests are the eyes of the church” (his works, vol. 1, p. 479, and Niketas of the Black Mountain, Sermon 7). And we had priests continuously during the time when there were no bishops; therefore, even then, we had an eye of the church. Only one eye—the bishops—was missing; the other eye (the priests) was always present.
New Ritualist: So, your church was a freak! A one-eyed church! Lopsided! What kind of church is that?
Old Ritualist: Mocking and ridiculing sacred matters is your way, as you do not seek truth but only to slander and dishonor your opponent. Our task is only to believe and seek the truth. You say that the Old Ritualist church was a freak, a monstrosity, because I said that although it lacked the eye of bishops, it still had the eye of priests. But let’s assume, according to you, that it was a freak. What then? That is the real question, not the mockery. Let us see what our Lord Jesus Christ determined for a one-eyed creature versus one with two eyes. I read in the Gospel: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye” (Mark 9:47). Look at that: a church that plucks out the offending eye, left with one eye alone and, as you say, becoming a freak, will enter the kingdom of God and bring its children to eternal happiness. And what about the church that does not remove the offending eye and keeps both eyes? This is what it says: “having two eyes to be cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47-48, reading 42). Do you see? A church that does not remove the offending eye and keeps both eyes will be cast into hell fire, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. These are the words of the Lord God Himself. He will judge us at the Last Judgment according to His words and commandments, according to His holy Gospel. He said, “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48, reading 43).
So, on the last day of the dreadful judgment, the books will be opened (as it says in the hymn for Meatfare Sunday), the Gospel will be laid open—let us imagine the dreadful judgment of Christ in human terms—and Christ, the righteous Judge, will ask our Old Ritualist church, “Why were you one-eyed for some time?” She will, of course, answer, “Because I plucked out the offending eye, according to Your commandment.” “Enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 9:47, reading 42), Christ will say. Then He will turn to you, the New Ritualists, and ask, “And you, why did you not pluck out the offending eye? Why did you always keep both eyes, ignoring the fact that one was offending?” You will answer, “It was too painful to pluck out our eye, and we were ashamed to appear one-eyed, a freak.” “Cast them,” says the judgment of God, “into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47-48, reading 42).
That this saying of the Savior regarding the offending eye also applies to bishops who have gone astray is confirmed by St. Athanasius the Great. In his interpretation, he says: “Walking in the infallible and life-giving way, let us pluck out the offending eye—not the physical eye (for even the blind can commit adultery) but the mental eye. For example, if a bishop or presbyter, as eyes of the church, lives wickedly and causes offense to the people, he must be cast out. For it is better to gather in the house of prayer without them than, with them, to be cast into the fire of hell, as with Annas and Caiaphas” (his works, vol. 1, p. 479, and Nikon of the Black Mountain, Sermon 7).
Therefore, you New Ritualists ought not to mock the Old Ritualists but to mourn your own unfortunate situation, for you, along with your hierarchs, like Annas and Caiaphas, will be cast into the fire of hell for failing to pluck out the offending eye—the heretical bishops—against the commandments of God.
New Ritualist: The commentary of St. Athanasius the Great that you read indeed shows that the Savior’s words about removing the offending eye apply to heretical bishops. However, it says that such a bishop must be cast out. And who can cast out a bishop? Only other bishops, and specifically a council of bishops, with no fewer than twelve, as stated in the 12th canon of the Council of Carthage. But you Old Ritualists were left without bishops after 1667, with only priests and laypeople remaining. They have no right to judge or cast out bishops. No one has the right to separate from a bishop before a conciliar judgment against him, even if he errs in something. Yet you separated from the bishops before they were judged, which is why St. Athanasius’s interpretation does not justify you.
Old Ritualist: The holy canons indeed specify that priests and laypeople should not separate from their bishop before he has been judged, but only in cases where he holds the Orthodox faith unchanged, even if he has committed some sin. For example, if a bishop commits murder, sacrilege, or something similar, and his subordinates know of it, they should not separate from him but are obligated to bring it to the council of bishops, and once the council finds him guilty and condemns him, then they should cease obedience to him. However, if a bishop begins preaching heresies, then priests and laypeople must separate from him without waiting for a conciliar judgment. This is evidently the understanding of St. Athanasius when he said, “It is better to gather in the house of prayer without them (the bishops).” If St. Athanasius had understood as you do—that only bishops could cast out an offending or heretical bishop to give others the right to separate from him—he would have said it was better to gather with Orthodox bishops. But no, he firmly insists that it is better to gather entirely without bishops if they become heretics, foreseeing a situation where there would be no Orthodox bishops, and Christians would then have to gather without them.
That one should separate from such offending bishops before any conciliar judgment is confirmed by the holy council known as the First-Second Council, or the Double Council, in its 15th canon, along with many other holy church regulations, which I will present shortly.