On the Fall of Bishops #
If all the apostles could simultaneously fall not only into error but even into disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection, then it is even more likely that bishops can fall into error, as indeed happened in the middle of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, it should be noted that all the apostles fell into this disbelief at once, whereas bishops did not all fall at once, but gradually.
New Ritualist: But how can you claim that during the time of Nikon all bishops fell into heresy simultaneously?
Old Ritualist: No one is telling you that. At that time, only a small fraction, and indeed a very small fraction, of bishops fell into error. Long before Nikon, one part of the bishops fell into Arianism, another into Nestorianism, later some fell into Monophysitism, others into Monothelitism, and so on; and, after a while, a large portion of the bishops fell away from Orthodoxy together with the Pope of Rome. Only a very small portion of bishops remained. And it was this portion that fell into error in the middle of the seventeenth century. The insignificance of this last portion can be seen from the fact that at the largest council to date, the Council of 1667, there were only twenty-nine bishops in total—barely three dozen (History of the Russian Church, Macarius, Vol. 12, p. 683). And even this small portion of bishops did not fall into heresy all at once, but in stages. First, only one Moscow Patriarch, Nikon, deviated when he issued his “Memorandum,” or directive with erroneous teachings on bows and finger arrangements for making the sign of the cross in 1653 (ibid., p. 118); then, in the following year, 1654, eight more bishops were misled by deception and coercion into siding with Nikon at a council; two years later, in 1656, another four Greek hierarchs joined these renegades when they anathematized Orthodox Christians; in the same year, at another council, ten bishops rejected the two-fingered sign of the cross as heresy and confirmed the anathema on Orthodox Christians for using it. Then, eleven years later, in 1667, fourteen more bishops joined these heresiarchs. These were the last bishops to fall away from Orthodoxy; after them, there were no truly Orthodox bishops left. From this, it is clear that while all the bishops eventually fell into error, it did not happen all at once but gradually.
But even if all bishops had fallen into error simultaneously, it would not be reason to be disturbed as if something unusual had happened, nor should it lead one to abandon the Orthodox faith. Besides the evidence provided, there are many other proofs of this, some of which I will present. When the heretical Monothelites imprisoned St. Maximus the Confessor and began urging him to accept their heresy, arguing that many bishops, including two legates from the Pope of Rome, had agreed with them, the saint replied: “Even if the entire world begins to commune with the patriarch (the heretic), I shall not commune with him. For I know that the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, consigns to anathema even angels who preach another doctrine” (Lives of the Saints, January 21). Remarkably, St. Maximus did not tell the heretics that it was impossible for all bishops to fall into heresy or that some bishops would remain steadfast. No; he spoke of the fall of bishops even more strongly than the heretics, who sought to shock and persuade him by pointing to the number of fallen bishops. When they told him that even the Roman legates and many bishops had joined them, he replied that even if not only many bishops fell into error but even the entire world, he would still remain steadfast in Orthodoxy, even if he had to stand alone. And he was not a bishop but merely an abbot. I am willing to concede that the heretics may have lied when they claimed that many bishops had joined them, or even that no one joined them and only the Patriarch of Constantinople stood with them. This is not important; what is important is what St. Maximus the Confessor said: if the entire world falls into heresy, I alone will not join the apostates; I will not follow them. He was not lying, of course. If, in his time, all bishops had truly fallen into heresy, he would have kept his word: he would not have followed them. Not just all bishops—even if the whole world fell into heresy, he would not have been shaken; he would have remained in the Orthodox faith. If St. Maximus the Confessor had lived in the time of Nikon, he would not have been disturbed by the fact that all, or rather the remaining, bishops had fallen into error, nor would he have followed them. Although he was not on earth at that time, his followers and those who kept to his teachings were, and they were not at all disturbed that the remaining bishops had fallen into error—they repeated St. Maximus’s words: “Even if the entire world (and not only twenty-nine bishops) begins to think heretically, the Orthodox Christian should not be led astray.”
Thus, the ancient holy Church, the holy fathers, and the teachers of the Church did not at all adhere to your missionary teaching that all bishops cannot fall into heresy. This was taught not only by St. Maximus the Confessor but by other holy fathers of the Church as well. When Pope Martin was asked to accept the heretical doctrine presented in a book called the Type, he replied: “Even if the entire world wishes to accept this new teaching, which is contrary to the true faith, I will not accept it, nor will I abandon the teachings of the Gospel, the Apostles, and the traditions of the holy fathers, even if I must suffer death” (Lives of the Saints, January 21). Likewise, St. Basil the Great, an ecumenical teacher, wrote to monks oppressed by the Arians: “Let not the multitude of people disturb you, agitated like the waters of the sea by winds, for if even one is saved, like Lot in Sodom, he must hold fast to sound judgment, having unshakable hope in Christ, for the Lord will not forsake His saints” (Works of St. Basil, Part 7, Letter 249). Another ecumenical teacher, St. John Chrysostom, speaking about the dangers of lack of leadership and disobedience to authorities, says: “But someone might say there is a third evil—that of a bad leader. I know this: it is no small evil, and even much worse than lack of leadership, for it is better to be without a leader than to be under a bad one. In the first case, the people are sometimes in danger, but sometimes also saved; in the latter case, they are always in danger and led into the abyss. Why, then, does Paul say, ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them’? He says this after advising, ‘Remember those who spoke the word of God to you, consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith’ (Hebrews 13:7). And he adds, `Obey your leaders and submit to them.’ What then, you might say, if the leader is bad? Should we not obey him? Bad, you say—in what sense? If in matters of faith, flee from him and have no part with him, even if he were not only a man but an angel who came down from heaven; but if in conduct, do not inquire into that” (Homily 34 on Hebrews).
This is what the holy fathers teach, this is what the holy Church commands: even if all bishops, indeed the entire world, should think heretically and fall into heresy, the Orthodox Christian should not be disturbed as if this were something extraordinary, but should remain in the Orthodox faith, even if he must stand alone, like Lot in Sodom; for it is better to be without any leader than to be under a bad one, one who is unsound in faith.
This teaching of the holy fathers is in full agreement with the teaching of the holy apostles, upon which it is based. The holy Apostle Paul speaks even more strongly than the holy fathers whose testimonies we have cited. He says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Saint John Chrysostom interprets this passage as follows: “Note the apostle’s wisdom! So that no one might say that he is making his own doctrines out of vanity, he even subjects himself to the same curse. And since they (the erring ones) relied on the dignity of James and John, he mentions angels as well. ‘Do not point out to me,’ he says, ‘James and John; I am telling you that even if one of the highest angels from heaven should alter the preaching of the Gospel, let him be accursed.’ He does not say, ‘if they preach something entirely contrary,’ but ‘if they preach anything even slightly different from what we have preached,’ let them be accursed. Paul prefers Scripture even over angels descending from heaven. And rightly so, for although angels are great, they are servants and ministers, while Scripture is given to us not by servants but by the Lord and God of all. By pronouncing a curse on preachers and angels, he encompasses all dignity; and by pronouncing it upon himself, he excludes all kinship and fellowship. Do not tell me, he says, ‘This is what the apostles and your friends teach’; I will not spare even myself if I preach differently. However, he does not say this to condemn other apostles, as if they had distorted the preaching of the Gospel; no. For he says, `whether it be I or they, so we preach’ (1 Corinthians 15:11); but he only wanted to show that the dignity of persons is not taken into account when it comes to the truth” (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 1, pp. 33-35).
Thus, according to the teaching of the holy fathers and the holy apostles, if not only all bishops, not only the entire world, but even the apostles themselves, or even the angels from heaven, were to preach something beyond what the apostles preached, then an Orthodox Christian should not only not be troubled or led astray but should respond to them with “anathema.” If all bishops were incapable of falling into heresy, the holy fathers and the Apostle Paul would have said something like this: even if many bishops or a majority of them fall into error, one should not follow them—anathema to them. But they say that even if not only all bishops but the entire universe, and not only the entire universe but also the apostles themselves, and not only the apostles but also the angels of heaven, were to fall into error, one must not follow them.
What, then, do we see in Nikon’s time? Neither did angels from heaven preach anything beyond what was preached, nor did the apostles contradict their own teachings, nor did the entire world fall into heresy. Instead, a completely ordinary, simple, and unremarkable event occurred: an insignificant portion of hierarchs, numbering twenty-nine—many of whom had already fallen into error, with some having changed their faith several times, being Catholics, Muslims, and even renouncers of Christ, educated in Jesuit academies, and leading lives of the lowest, most immoral, and corrupt behavior—gathered in 1666-1667 for a council, confirmed all of Nikon’s previous errors, innovations, and anathemas with few exceptions, and added an additional anathema on Orthodox Christians for their adherence to Orthodox traditions. Among them, some acted maliciously, while others were simply deceived and misled, not even understanding what was happening at the council or what they were signing, as many of them did not know or understand Russian.
Yet missionaries sing praises and cry out with fervor: “All bishops! All bishops! Could all bishops fall into error? Could all bishops fall into error at once? Who dares to disobey all bishops?” and so on. But there is hardly anything here worth noting: “all bishops”—and they aren’t even three dozen. That’s what they call “all”!