In Whom Does Ordination Disappear and Perish? And on the Luciferians* #
New Ritualist: Your teaching about the priesthood—that it does not cease due to heresies, or even due to prohibitions and deposition—contradicts St. John Chrysostom’s words in his 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says: What do you say, that they have the same faith, and are Orthodox? Then why are they not with us? One Lord, one faith, one baptism. If what they have is good, then ours is bad; if ours is good, then theirs is bad. Children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind. Does it not suffice you to say they are Orthodox? But what about their ordinations—do they disappear and perish? And what benefit is there if others do not face such a peril? Just as for the faith, so must we contend for this as well (Homilies on the Epistles, p. 1693). What do you say to this?
Old Ritualist: I would say that the words of St. Chrysostom you cited actually confirm the Church’s teaching that the priesthood is not destroyed by any sins or heresies in which its bearers may fall. In fact, Chrysostom’s teaching refutes your view that the priesthood is supposedly destroyed by errors and sins if a bishop or priest strays into them.
New Ritualist: And how do you prove this?
Old Ritualist: Through the facts themselves and through history. Do you know whom St. John Chrysostom’s 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, from which you quoted, was written against?
New Ritualist: It was written, as stated in its title, against the schismatics who separated themselves from the Church, though they held the same faith, because they acted contrary to the law and canons (Homilies on the Epistles, p. 1692). Chrysostom composed it in Antioch, where he was a deacon and later a priest before becoming patriarch.
Old Ritualist: Very well, then tell me, who were these schismatics in Antioch during Chrysostom’s time who held the Orthodox faith yet were guilty of actions against the law and canons, and in whom ordination “disappeared and perished”?
New Ritualist: I don’t know. Please explain.
Old Ritualist: These were the so-called Luciferians—followers of Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari. The error of these heretics, or rather schismatics, lay solely in their belief that ordination, or the priesthood, was nullified in heretical bishops. Therefore, they regarded Arian bishops as mere laymen and impostors; and if they came over to them, they accepted them not in their clerical ranks but as ordinary laypeople, although they accepted their baptism without re-baptism. For this reason, the Luciferians in Antioch refused to submit to Meletius, the local patriarch, because he had been ordained by Arians. St. Chrysostom, who was ordained a deacon by Meletius, wrote precisely against these schismatics—the Luciferians—who had no communion with Meletius, nor with his successor Flavian, nor with Chrysostom himself, nor with the Orthodox Church in general. He wrote that ordination “disappeared and perished” among them, and that we must contend for it as we do for the faith. But how did ordination “disappear and perish” among the Luciferians, and how did they fail to defend it, if they had their own bishops and rejected heretical ones?—It was only because they believed that ordination ceased to exist in bishops who fell into heresy, and nothing more. The Orthodox, on the other hand, contended that ordination is not destroyed by heresies. For this reason, St. John Chrysostom, in the above-mentioned homily, teaches and proves that ordination “disappears and perishes” in the community that believes ordination is nullified in bishops who fall into heresy. And this erroneous belief is held by you, the New Ritualists, as well as by the Priestless factions, just as the ancient Luciferians denied ordination to Arian heretics, though they accepted their baptism.
New Ritualist: How can we be sure that the Luciferians’ error lay in recognizing Arian bishops as impostors while accepting their baptism?
Old Ritualist: Blessed Jerome wrote a dialogue against the Luciferians, from which I will read certain passages that directly address your question:
Luciferian: If Arians are heretics, and all heretics are pagans, then Arians are pagans. And if Arians are pagans, and the Church can have no communion with pagans, that is, with Arians, then it is clear that your (Orthodox) Church, which accepts bishops from among the Arians—that is, from among pagans—is not so much accepting bishops as it is accepting priests from the Capitol (a pagan temple), and thus should more rightly be called the synagogue of Antichrist than the Church of Christ.
Orthodox: See, the prophecy is fulfilled: he dug a pit for me and has fallen into it himself.
Luciferian: How so?
Orthodox: If, as you say, Arians are pagans, and the gatherings of Arians are camps of the devil, then why do you accept those baptized in the camps of the devil?
Luciferian: I accept them, but only when they repent.
Orthodox: You truly don’t understand what you are saying. Who accepts a pagan on condition of repentance?
Luciferian: A layperson coming from the Arians should be received through repentance, but not a cleric.
Orthodox: Don’t you know that both laypeople and clergy have one Christ? That there is not one God for newly converted laypeople and another for bishops? Why then do you accept penitent laypeople but not penitent clergy?
Luciferian: It’s not the same to shed tears over one’s sins and to touch the body of the Lord. It’s not the same to fall at the knees of brethren and to distribute the Eucharist from a high place to the people. It is one thing to grieve over what one was, and another to disregard sin and be surrounded by glory in the Church. You, who yesterday blasphemously proclaimed the Son of God to be a creature; you, who daily, being worse than a Jew, cast stones of blasphemy at Christ—your hands full of blood, your pen like a soldier’s spear—you, an adulterer, enter the virgin Church just an hour after conversion? If you truly repent of your sins, lay down your priestly office; if you are inclined to sin, remain what you were.
Orthodox: Since you insist that the position of bishop differs from that of a layman, then to simplify our dispute, I will concede to you and willingly fight from this position. Explain to me, then, why you accept a layperson coming from the Arians but not a bishop?
Luciferian: I accept the layperson because he acknowledges his error, and the Lord desires repentance more than the death of a sinner.
Orthodox: Then accept the bishop as well, for he too acknowledges his error, and the Lord desires repentance more than the death of a sinner.
Luciferian: If he acknowledges that he was in error, how can he remain a bishop? Let him lay down his priesthood, and I will grant absolution to the penitent.
Orthodox: I’ll answer you with your own words. If a layperson acknowledges his error, how can he remain a layperson? Let him lay down his layman’s “priesthood,” that is, baptism, and I will grant absolution to the penitent, for it is written, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6), and again, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). Whatever is forbidden to a Christian is equally forbidden to both bishop and layperson. Whoever repents condemns their past actions. If it is impermissible for a repentant bishop to remain in his role, it is equally impermissible for a repentant layperson to continue in their former state.
Luciferian: We accept the layperson because no one would convert if they knew they would have to undergo a second baptism; otherwise, by rejecting them, we would be the cause of their destruction.
Orthodox: By accepting the layperson, you save one soul through this acceptance; by accepting a bishop, I unite to the Church not merely the people of one city but an entire region under his leadership. If I reject him, he will lead many others into perdition. This is why I urge you to apply the same rule to the salvation of all that you apply to the salvation of a few. But you are both hard-hearted and inconsistent in your leniency, considering the one who gives baptism an enemy of Christ, but the one who receives it a son. We, however, do not contradict ourselves; we either accept the bishop along with the people he shepherds into Christianity, or, if we do not accept the bishop, we must also reject the people.
(From the Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Luciferian, in the works of Blessed Jerome, vol. 4).
Herein lies the false teaching of the heretical Luciferians. It was solely in their belief that ordination ceased and perished upon heretical bishops, which led them to consider such bishops as impostors, accepting them as laymen, although they did not repeat baptism received from them. The Orthodox, however, affirmed that ordination among heretics is as valid as baptism, and thus they received heretical clergy in their existing ranks. This makes it evident that you New Ritualists, like the Priestless factions, follow not the teachings of the holy fathers but the heresy of the Luciferians: like them, you believe that bishops who fall into heresy become laymen. This is why you regard Old Ritualist bishops and priests as laymen, merely because, in your understanding, they are in schism; hence, should they come to you, you would accept them as laypeople without re-baptizing them, exactly as the heretical Luciferians did. That is the first point.
Secondly, we see that among the heretical Luciferians, ordination “disappeared and perished” precisely because they regarded heretical bishops as laypeople. Indeed, if one holds this belief, one must conclude that the correct ordination has never existed and still does not exist in the Church of Christ, for it would have long since disappeared and perished. It is known that in ancient times, many bishops who had been ordained by heretics later returned to Orthodoxy and remained in their ranks, later even performing ordinations within the Orthodox Church. For this reason, the holy fathers established that when clergy enter into communion with us, the only inquiry that must be made concerns whether they confess the Orthodox faith and whether their ordination was received not through simony or other fault. If, though ordained by a heretic or a simoniac (ordained through bribery), they do not hold heretical beliefs and were unknowingly ordained by a simoniac, if they confess the full truth, uphold the faith and canons unchanged, and reject those who diverge from either, then we have no grounds for rejecting them. Such a one is not subject to condemnation, for if we go beyond these measures, we reject the counsel of the saints, and the great gift of priesthood, through which we receive the name “Christian,” becomes in vain, and we risk falling into paganism. Such action would be folly, and thus the priesthood itself would be destroyed (Works of Theodore the Studite, vol. 1, letter 53, pp. 313-314).
Thus, according to the holy fathers, ordination can be nullified only if someone asserts that ordination received from heretical bishops is invalid, for in that case, ordination can indeed perish, since heretical ordainers existed previously as well. But we Old Ritualists teach, on the contrary, that lawful ordination does not perish, disappear, or die even in heretical bishops. Therefore, Chrysostom’s teaching on the “disappearance of ordination” does not condemn us but rather justifies us. But it does condemn and rebuke you New Ritualists, for you, like the heretical Luciferians against whom St. Chrysostom wrote, teach that ordination ceases and disappears in bishops who fall into heresy. For this reason, your priesthood truly does “disappear and perish,” despite your having bishops, just as it disappeared and perished among the heretical Luciferians, despite their having bishops.
New Ritualist: And how can you prove that the Luciferians had their own bishops?
Old Ritualist: First, by the fact that Lucifer himself, the leader of these schismatics, was a bishop. Second, history attests that the Luciferians held their own private assemblies in Rome and had Aurelius as their bishop, succeeded by Ephesius (Church History, Vladimir Guettée, vol. 3, ch. 5, p. 447). Moreover, it is known that Lucifer consecrated Paulinus as bishop in Antioch, refusing to acknowledge Meletius, who had been ordained by Arians. Paulinus was succeeded by Evagrius. St. John Chrysostom wrote his 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians against the followers of Paulinus, who had been ordained by Lucifer, and in it, he argued that ordination “disappeared and perished” among these schismatics.
New Ritualist: You claim that Meletius was ordained by Arians. But I disagree. Our missionaries argue the opposite. For example, the well-known teacher of our Church, E. Antonov, in his Examination of Shvetsov’s Testimonies, writes: Let us indicate specific inaccuracies, either intentional or unintentional, made by Shvetsov. He states that Meletius, Archbishop of Antioch, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, was ordained by Arians; however, he later adopted the right confession of faith, and his ordination was accepted by the Orthodox Church. He cites the 7th volume of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils as evidence. But St. Meletius never departed from the correct confession of faith, and in the Ecumenical Council records that Shvetsov referenced, nothing is said about him departing from the Orthodox faith: thus, Shvetsov has slandered the Seventh Ecumenical Council by claiming it testifies that St. Meletius deviated from the correct confession of faith. The dispute among the Antiochians was not about whether Arian ordination was valid or invalid, as Shvetsov falsely asserts, but over suspicions that Meletius held Arian beliefs. In Philostorgius’s History (p. 425), a list of bishops supportive of Arian heresy present at the Council of Nicaea includes Meletius of Sevastopol, who is also called Meletius of Sebasteia in the same alphabetical listing. Since he was present at the First Ecumenical Council, he must have received ordination from bishops who, though sharing Arian views, had not yet been condemned and were still members of the Orthodox Church. Thus, there was no basis to suspect his ordination, and the Orthodox of Antioch did not, in fact, question St. Meletius’s ordination, but only harbored suspicions about his adherence to Arian teachings (pp. 211-213). This is what our missionaries and Church teachers state. So, whom should I believe—you or them?
Do not believe either me or them if either of us speaks falsely. Rather, believe in the truth, in the teachings of the holy fathers, in reliable history, and in those who align their words with these. For example, your Church teachers, led by Mr. Antonov, insist that Meletius was ordained not by Arians, although he held some of Arius’s errors, and that this happened during the First Ecumenical Council. We, however, say that Meletius was ordained by Arians after the First Ecumenical Council. Whom should we believe? Who speaks the truth, and who lies? To resolve this question, let us turn directly to the Ecumenical Council and listen to what it says on the matter.
We read in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “Peter, the beloved presbyter representing the most holy Pope Adrian, said, ‘According to historians, St. Meletius was ordained by Arians; but upon ascending the pulpit, he proclaimed the word consubstantial, and his ordination was not rejected.’ Theodore, the most holy bishop of Catana, and the bishops of Sicily with him, said: ‘The protopresbyter of the Apostolic See speaks the truth’” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, session 2).
In the Church History of Socrates Scholasticus, it is written:
They (the Arian bishops who attended the Council of Constantinople around 360) did not even allow Eustathius, bishop of Sebasteia in Armenia, to justify himself. It should be noted that Meletius was appointed bishop in his place." Later: “As mentioned earlier, he (Meletius) was made bishop of Sebasteia in Armenia after Eustathius was deposed, but soon after he was transferred to Berea, and at the Council of Seleucia he signed the Arian confession of faith. He then went directly to Berea. When, after the Council of Constantinople, the people of Antioch learned that Eudoxius (bishop of Antioch) had abandoned their church for the wealth of the Constantinople church, they recalled Meletius from Berea and placed him on the throne of Antioch. Initially, Meletius refrained from discussing doctrinal matters, offering only moral instruction. But later, he began to preach the Nicene confession and teach the doctrine of consubstantiality (i.e., the Orthodox faith). Learning of this, the emperor ordered him into exile and ordained Euzoïus, who had previously been deposed along with Arius, as bishop of Antioch. Many Antiochians, loyal to Meletius, abandoned Arian assemblies and began to gather separately. However, the original proponents of consubstantiality (the Orthodox) refused to have communion with them because Meletius had received his ordination from the Arians, and his followers were baptized by them as well. Thus, the Church in Antioch split into two factions, both holding the same faith (Socrates, Church History, book 2, chapters 43 and 44, pp. 241, 244-245).
The same is found in Sozomen’s Church History:
Hearing that Meletius had accepted Orthodoxy, Eudoxius’ allies (the Arians) were troubled and sought to expel him from the city. First, they tried to persuade him to retract his statement and adopt the opposite doctrine, but since he did not relent, the emperor ordered him expelled from the church and exiled. When this was carried out, Euzoïus, who had been deposed with Arius, took over the Antiochian throne, and Meletius’ followers gathered separately from both the Arians and the Orthodox, as those who had long confessed the Son (of God) to be consubstantial with the Father refused communion with them because Meletius had been ordained by Arian bishops, and his followers had been baptized by the same. For this reason, they separated, even though they shared the same belief (Church History, book 4, chapter 28, pp. 299-300).
Soon after, Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, arrived in Antioch, as Sozomen attests, and found the church there divided. It was split between followers of the Arian heresy, led by Euzoïus, and the followers of Meletius, who, as stated earlier, had also separated from their own faction. Before Meletius could return from exile, Lucifer ordained Paulinus as bishop (ibid., book 5, chapter 12, p. 339).
Baronius describes it as follows:
He (i.e., Lucifer) went to Antioch to support the Orthodox there. Seeing the Orthodox people of Antioch divided—one part following Bishop Meletius and the other opposing him because he had once been an Arian, and his followers had been baptized by Arians—Lucifer, wanting to provide them with a bishop whom both sides would accept, ordained the worthy and holy Paulinus, who had never been stained by heresy. Yet Meletius’ followers refused to separate from him. Thus, Antioch had three bishops: Euzoïus the Arian, and two Orthodox, Meletius and Paulinus (year of the Lord 362, entry 23-23).
After this, Socrates writes,
Meletius, restored by Julian and then exiled again by Valens, was now summoned back by Gratian. Upon his arrival in Antioch, he found Paulinus in advanced old age. Immediately, all of Meletius’ supporters sought to have him share the episcopal throne with Paulinus. But when Paulinus declared that sharing the throne with someone ordained by Arians would violate Church canons, the people resorted to force and sought to enthrone Meletius in an outlying church, which led to considerable unrest. To settle the matter, they assembled six men deemed worthy of the episcopate, including Flavian. They pledged that none of them, upon the death of either bishop, would claim the bishopric but would yield the throne to the surviving bishop. Once these oaths were taken, the people returned to unity, no longer dividing. Only the Luciferians remained separate, for they opposed the admission of Meletius, who had been ordained by Arians, to the bishopric. This was the state of affairs in Antioch when Meletius was to attend the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) (Church History, book 5, chapter 5, p. 392).
This is what the ancient Church historians say, and their testimony is affirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council itself. They clearly and irrefutably demonstrate that St. Meletius of Antioch was originally an Arian and was ordained by Arian bishops in Sebasteia to replace Eustathius, according to Arian decrees. Later, after he was transferred to Antioch, he accepted the Nicene Creed, or Orthodox faith, and began to proclaim it to the people. As a result, many laity and clergy separated themselves from the Arians and joined him. However, the Orthodox faithful in Antioch, who had already been confessing the doctrine of consubstantiality, refused to commune with Meletius and his followers precisely because Meletius had been ordained by Arian bishops. Consequently, Lucifer, who rejected communion with bishops returning from heresy, unlawfully ordained another bishop, Paulinus, for Antioch—a man known for his saintly life and who had never been tainted by heresy. Paulinus held the same Luciferian error, believing that bishops ordained by heretics were mere laymen, and thus he refused to share the throne with Meletius, who had been ordained by Arians, asserting that this was against Church canons. While many of the people reconciled with Meletius, the Luciferians, led by Bishop Paulinus, remained separate, solely because Meletius, though ordained by Arians, was admitted to the episcopate after joining the Orthodox Church. These indisputable historical testimonies, which we have read, confirm all of this.
However, the teachers or missionaries of your Church, led by E. Antonov, claim instead that Meletius was ordained by members of the Orthodox Church at the First Ecumenical Council. Antonov further asserts that “the Orthodox Antiochians supposedly did not criticize St. Meletius’s ordination but instead suspected him of holding Arian beliefs” and that there was supposedly no basis to question his ordination. History, however, shows the opposite: there was no reason to doubt Meletius’s beliefs after his acceptance into the Orthodox Church, as he openly and solemnly confessed the Orthodox faith before a large gathering in the church and proved his firmness in the faith by enduring persecution from the Arians, including two periods of exile. In fact, no one questioned his Orthodox faith; they criticized only his ordination, as he had been ordained by Arian bishops while still an Arian. It was precisely over the question of Meletius’s ordination, and the broader issue of the validity of ordinations performed by heretics, that the schism arose among the Antiochians, who otherwise held the same Orthodox faith. Supporters of St. Meletius, as well as he and the Orthodox Church as a whole, considered his ordination valid. But the followers of Lucifer, led by Paulinus, considered it invalid and void, refusing communion with Meletius for this reason alone. It was solely for this Luciferian error—believing that the priesthood and ordination are nullified when bishops fall into heresy and that such bishops must be received as laymen upon their conversion—that Paulinus and his followers became schismatics. Against these schismatics and their error, St. John Chrysostom wrote the aforementioned homily, in which he argues that by such false teaching, ordination is nullified, disappears, and perishes.
Mr. Antonov’s efforts to prove that Meletius of Antioch was ordained not by Arians but by Orthodox bishops who held Arian errors but had not yet been condemned, and supposedly at the First Ecumenical Council, are entirely fruitless and fail to support his argument. As demonstrated above, both history and an entire Ecumenical Council clearly and decisively state that Meletius of Antioch was ordained by Arians; thus, claiming he was ordained by the Orthodox directly contradicts irrefutable historical and conciliar testimonies—it is an outright falsehood. Antonov’s citation of a supplement to Philostorgius’s history as support for his view does nothing to prove that Meletius of Antioch was ordained by Orthodox bishops at the First Ecumenical Council. First, there is no such statement in the cited text; it only mentions Meletius of Sevastopol among Arian sympathizers and nothing more. Second, it does not even appear in Philostorgius’s main work but in an appendix, or supplement, and references “Meletius of Sevastopol” rather than “Meletius of Sebasteia.” In fact, “Meletius of Sebasteia” appears not in Philostorgius’s main history or its supplement but in an alphabetical index, likely created by the Russian translator. Is this supposed to be evidence? It’s unfortunate that Mr. Antonov has resorted to such poor-quality evidence, presenting and relying on such insubstantial and empty testimonies, which fail to prove anything and only bring shame upon the one presenting them. Third, the Meletius of Sevastopol was undoubtedly just a namesake of St. Meletius of Antioch (sharing the same name), since, as history shows, the latter was ordained in Sebasteia to replace the Arian bishop Eustathius, who served long after the First Council, and therefore could not have attended that Council as a bishop. Finally, even if we agree with Antonov’s view that St. Meletius was ordained at the First Council by bishops sympathetic to Arianism, his assertion that these bishops had not yet been condemned and were still members of the Orthodox Church collapses, as both Arius and his followers were condemned and excommunicated by the local Alexandrian Council long before the First Council (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1). Dissatisfied with this judgment, Arius’s faction began to agitate the Church, winning many followers, which led to the convening of the First Ecumenical Council to restore peace in a Church troubled by the conciliar condemnation of the Arians.
Returning now to the schism of the Luciferians in Antioch, we see from history that Antioch had two bishops simultaneously who held the Orthodox belief in God: St. Meletius, who was fully Orthodox, and Paulinus, who had been ordained by Lucifer and adhered to the Luciferian error. Although it was decided that upon the death of one, the other would remain as sole bishop, when Meletius died in 381, Flavian was consecrated to his position even though Paulinus was still alive (Socrates, Church History, book 5, ch. 9, p. 399; Sozomen, Church History, book 7, ch. 11, p. 492). After Paulinus, who had been ordained by Lucifer, died in 389, Evagrius was appointed in his place (Socrates, Church History, book 5, ch. 15, p. 410, note). Thus, the schism in Antioch continued: one faction, the followers of Meletius and later Flavian, remained fully Orthodox, while the other faction, supporters of Paulinus and his successor Evagrius, was Orthodox in faith but adhered to the Luciferian error, believing that bishops ordained by Arians could not retain their orders. This was why they refused to submit to Meletius, as he had been ordained by Arians (Sozomen, Church History, book 7, ch. 3, pp. 478-479). St. John Chrysostom belonged to the party of Meletius and Flavian—Meletius ordained him as a deacon in 381, and Flavian ordained him as a presbyter in 386. In 398, he was elevated to the rank of Patriarch of Constantinople. Therefore, Chrysostom was in Antioch from 381 to 398, during which time he composed his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Life and Works of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, Farrar, p. 812). Consequently, St. John Chrysostom wrote the 11th homily on this epistle specifically against the schismatics or Luciferian separatists, in which he asserts that we must contend both for the faith and for ordination, and that there is no benefit from the former if the latter is in danger of disappearing and perishing, as was the case among the Luciferians, who had bishops but taught that ordination is destroyed in hierarchs who fall into heresy.
New Ritualist: You have proven that the Luciferians did not accept bishops coming from heresy into their ranks, and that against them, St. John Chrysostom wrote the 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, condemning them on the grounds that their ordination was disappearing and perishing. This is true; I agree with that. Only I do not agree with your explanation that their ordination was disappearing because they accepted bishops coming from heresy as laypeople. The missionaries of our church prove that for Luciferians who were in Antioch, their ordination was disappearing because they did not have a bishop. This is what our famous apologist Mr. Antonov writes in the book Analysis of Shveitsov’s Testimonies:
After the death of Pavlin, Evagrius was elected in his place by the Roman bishop (Baronius, year of the Lord 382). The successor of Meletius, Archbishop Flavian, arranged matters so that the successor to Evagrius was no longer appointed, and the adherents of Evagrius, not wanting to submit to Flavian, continued to hold gatherings without bishops (Socrates, p. 410; Sozomen, p. 552). Thus, they formed a schismatic community. In condemnation of these schismatics, who had no bishops and whose sacrament of ordination had ceased, St. John Chrysostom, ordained as a presbyter by Archbishop Flavian, wrote the 11th homily on the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, titled: Against schismatics who separate themselves from the church in the same faith (p. 211).
This is how our missionaries explain this homily of Chrysostom, not as you do.
Old Ritualist: Praise be to God! Your apologist-missionaries agree with us on certain points. For example, they agree with us that Chrysostom wrote the 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians against schismatics, or schismatic Luciferians, followers of the bishops Lucifer and Pavlin, who held the misconception that ordination was destroyed among clergy who were in heresy, and therefore recognized and accepted them as laypeople. He speaks about them, saying that their ordination disappears and perishes, although they did have bishops. Your missionaries agree with us on this. Only they explain this fact somewhat differently. Their representative, Mr. Antonov, says that Chrysostom wrote this against the Luciferians when they no longer had a bishop; whereas we say that he wrote against them when they still had bishops. Now let’s see who among us explains it more correctly: us or your missionaries?
I agree to admit that the Antiochian Luciferians, during the time of St. John Chrysostom in Antioch, for some time did not have bishops, although this is questionable, since this discord there only ended in 413 AD (Life and Works of the Holy Fathers, Farrara, p. 595), when Chrysostom was already no longer alive. But to shorten the dispute, I agree to admit that at the time when Chrysostom was in Antioch, the local Luciferians experienced two periods: one with bishops and another without them. Now it remains only to resolve the issue: when St. John Chrysostom wrote the 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians – was it then, when the Antiochian Luciferians still had bishops, as we say, or then, when they no longer had bishops, as Mr. Antonov claims?
To correctly and indisputably resolve this issue, it is best to refer to the aforementioned homily, which is the subject of our dispute. In it, Chrysostom, speaking about the discord then occurring in Antioch between the Orthodox and the Luciferians, expresses, by the way, as follows:
“How shall we endure the laughter of the Greeks? If they reproach us for heresies, for this reason shall they not rebuke us? If you hold dogmas here, if you hold mysteries there, why then would the leader jump onto another church” (Homilies on the Epistles, p. 1694).
Is it not clear that the Luciferians had a leader – a bishop who jumped onto the Antiochian church? And this was Pavlin, ordained by Lucifer during the lifetime of the legitimate bishop Meletius and then Evagrius. Furthermore, St. John Chrysostom offers measures to end this discord, saying:
I speak not to you who are upcoming, but to you who have turned away. Adultery is a thing! If you do not accept to hear such things about them, then do not accept about us, for two should be like one law-breaker. If you do not hear such things about us, we are ready to relinquish leadership, and if you wish, the church will be united. But if we are lawfully, persuade to be deposed, who are law-breakers who have ascended to the throne (Homilies on the Epistles, pp. 1695-1696).
How would St. John Chrysostom advise deposing a law-breaker who has ascended to the episcopal throne if there was no such bishop? Can one depose someone who does not exist from the throne? It is clear that the Luciferians had a bishop at the time Chrysostom wrote that their ordination was disappearing and perishing. Thus, Mr. Antonov sharply contradicts St. John Chrysostom. This holy father decisively and irrefutably testifies that at the time he wrote the 11th homily, the schismatic Luciferians had bishops who had lawfully ascended to the throne. But Mr. Antonov, on the contrary, assures that at that time they had no bishops. Whom to believe? I leave it to your conscience.
Why did Mr. Antonov need, contrary to the obvious truth, to interpret that the Antiochian Luciferians had no bishop at the time when Chrysostom wrote the 11th homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians? Of course, in order to justify his church, which holds the Luciferians’ misconception, and accuse the Old Believers’ church, which rejects it. And there is nothing surprising in this, as the missionaries of your church have taken to habitually maliciously interpreting the sacred and patristic scriptures, disregarding the fact that a malicious interpreter is truly some image and semblance of the devil (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, ch. 4).
From all that has been said, it is clear that both St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Jerome, as well as the entire church in general, firmly recognized that ordination, or priesthood, is not destroyed by the apostasy of bishops into any error or even heresy. Whereas that community, which, although it had bishops, believed that chrismation (ordination) is only valid for Orthodox hierarchs and disappears, is destroyed and perishes – such a community became heretical, schismatic, and was named Luciferians, after the leader of this misconception. Against the followers of this misconception, Blessed Jerome armed himself in the West by writing a remarkable treatise against them in the form of a conversation, from which we have read some part earlier; and in the East, St. John Chrysostom fought against them, writing the 11th homily on the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians titled: Against schismatics who separate themselves from the church in the same faith.
And now you, New Old Believers, along with the priestless, hold onto this Luciferians’ misconception as a dogma of faith. Like the ancient Luciferians, you teach that priesthood is not eternal, that it can only exist as long as the hierarchs remain in orthodoxy; and only when they deviate into some misconception does priesthood disappear, perish, and is destroyed, so that they become laypeople, impostors. According to this, you recognize our Old Believer hierarchs as laypeople, since Metropolitan Ambrose, through whom they conduct their ordination, deviated, in your view, into schism, and they themselves are also in schism, and therefore you accept them as laypeople if any of them turns to you. And the priestless, on the same basis, recognize your hierarchs as laypeople, for they, in their conviction, conduct their chrismation from Patriarch Nikon who has deviated into heresy and themselves remain in heresy; therefore, they accept them as laypeople if any of them comes to them. Thus, both you and the priestless hold to the priesthood of a single main misconception – the Luciferians’ misconception, condemned by ancient holy fathers and rejected by the ancient Orthodox church because it is an evident impiety, destroying priesthood itself.
But we, Old Believers, possessing Christ-given priesthood, teach and affirm in agreement with the ancient Church of Christ, that priesthood, established by Christ, is not something temporary, but eternal, indestructible and indelible by any errors and misconceptions, nor by other forces of hell, and the plots of the enemy, so that if the bearers of priesthood deviate into misconception, priesthood does not disappear or is destroyed for them. As Christ is stronger than the devil, so His establishment is stronger and firmer than the devil’s establishment. Priesthood is the establishment of Christ, and misconceptions and heresies are the establishment of the devil. Therefore, if one acknowledges, as you do, that priesthood is destroyed by heresies, then one must still acknowledge that the devil’s establishment is stronger and firmer than Christ’s establishment, and the devil is stronger than Christ. This is the abyss of impiety into which your impious teaching on Christ’s priesthood leads you, supposedly destroyed by errors and misconceptions of its bearers. But we believe that Christ is stronger than the devil, and therefore priesthood is stronger than misconceptions and can never be destroyed by them, since the Lord, for the complete victory over the enemy’s plots, established a very powerful means – repentance, by which all errors, misconceptions, and heresies are shattered and destroyed – all the efforts of hell and the enemy’s plots.
In conclusion of all this, it is worth noting that the hand of St. Meletius of Antioch, who had received ordination from Arian bishops, rested upon all three of the great universal teachers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom. St. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom he ordained to the rank of deacon, and he elevated Gregory the Theologian to the office of Patriarch of Constantinople. As we read in the Menologion:
“When St. Basil the Great and Eubulus returned to the Holy City (Jerusalem), they remained there for one year. After this, they went to Antioch, where Meletius, the archbishop, ordained Basil as a deacon” (Jan. 1).
“When blessed John (Chrysostom came from the desert to Antioch) to the church, the most holy Patriarch Meletius received him with joy, provided him a place of rest, ordered him to live with him, and shortly thereafter ordained him a deacon. Afterward, St. Meletius went to Constantinople for the purpose of establishing St. Gregory Nazianzen” (Nov. 13). “There he confirmed St. Gregory the Theologian on the patriarchal throne of Constantinople” (Feb. 12).
At this point, I cannot refrain from noting that the priestless, as well as the missionaries, sometimes blasphemously speak of the Old Believer hierarchy, claiming that it originates from a “rotten root,” that is, from Metropolitan Ambrose, who was ordained by heretics. “What a root you have!” they mockingly exclaim. But let them take note of the root of St. Meletius of Antioch and of the three holy hierarchs: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom. From what root did these luminaries of the Church arise? The priestless and the missionaries would have to say that it was from a “rotten root.” And if they would not say this about them, then let them cease to mock the Old Believer hierarchy, which comes from the same root as those universal teachers of the Church.