The Promise of God Regarding the Inviolability of the Church #
New Ritualist: But I have weightier and more convincing evidence that all bishops cannot fall. Christ said in the Gospel: “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, reading 67). If bishops can fall into heresy, then the church of Christ could be overcome. But that would break God’s promise of its unassailability. Therefore, bishops, by virtue of this promise, cannot err in faith. Your church, having no bishop, was indeed overcome by the gates of hell.
Old Ritualist: Why do you twist the words of the Savior Himself? He said that the church, which He founded, would not be overcome. Yet you claim that He said bishops cannot fall into heresy. If He had promised the infallibility of bishops, He would have said plainly: “I will appoint bishops, and they shall not fall into error.” But He said no such thing. Rather, He said: “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” There is a distinction between the church and the bishops. The church is the assembly of all the faithful from all ages, peoples, and lands; bishops are merely one of its members. Christ’s promise was about the whole church, not any one member in particular. Concerning its members, including bishops, Christ made a different prophecy in the parable of the talents: that some member or servant of the Lord would be found unfaithful to His commandments, as we discussed earlier. Soon, we shall further show that the church, even if deprived of its bishops, does not cease to be the church.
Now, let us show that the Old Ritualist church has never been overcome in any way. We ask: Who is overcome? One who is defeated, destroyed, or has submitted to his adversary, accepting his proposal and fulfilling his wishes. Likewise, for the church to be overcome would mean either to be destroyed and wiped from the earth or to have accepted some heresy. For example, the churches of the Arians, the Novatians, the Luciferians, and others ceased to exist; they were therefore overcome by the gates of hell. Yet other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, Armenian, and Nestorian churches, still exist; though they are not yet destroyed, they are nevertheless overcome, for they have been conquered by the enemy of mankind, fulfilling his will by holding god-opposing heresies and teaching them to others. Indeed, among the schemes of the devil, the “gates of hell” include heresies. Metropolitan Gregory of St.@ Petersburg writes to your church: “The Reverend Cosmas the Presbyter, by the term ‘gates of hell,’ understood heretical teachings. He said, ‘On this rock,’ said Christ, ‘I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ meaning heretical teachings, which are indeed the gates of hell: for truly, those who listen to them descend to the gates of hell” (The Truly Ancient Church, p. 20).
Now we ask: Has the Old Ritualist church been overcome in any sense of the word “overcome”? Has it been destroyed or accepted heresies? No, in no way has it been overcome. That it has not been destroyed but continues to exist despite the hardships and persecutions it has endured is a fact beyond dispute; this is a truth that no one can deny. Nor has it been overcome in another sense: it has never held or taught any heresy. Your own church, through the voice of the Synod, testifies that Old Ritualists believe in God in an orthodox manner, uphold the gospel commandments unwaveringly, observe the canons of the ecumenical and local councils unchangingly, and, in sum, possess all the strength of the faith (Admonition, p. 35). Nor is there any heresy in the traditions or rites kept by the Old Ritualists. Even your church acknowledges this, having fully accepted all the old rites, allowing and even blessing their use among its children, the “Believers in Unity.” How, then, has the Old Ritualist church been overcome, when it has not been conquered in the least, standing strong under the blows of severe persecutions and plots from heretics? How can it be said to be overcome when, despite all the scandals, tricks, and humiliations surrounding it, it has neither accepted nor harbored the slightest heresy? How is it overcome when no one has defeated it?
New Ritualist: But it went one hundred and eighty years without a bishop; therefore, it was overcome by the gates of hell.
Old Ritualist: But is it heresy simply because there was temporarily no bishop? The absence of a bishop in the church is not heresy, nor error, nor a crime, but merely a historical event, an occurrence within the church. And if you insist that this is heresy, then you must decide and prove: which heretic taught this heresy? At what council was it condemned? Who introduced it into the Old Ritualist Church of Christ? And is it even heresy at all?
New Ritualist: While I cannot prove that the absence of a bishop in the church is heresy, I still maintain that the Old Ritualist church is at fault for being without a bishop for one hundred and eighty years.
Old Ritualist: If the Old Ritualist church is at fault for lacking a bishop for so long, why does your so-called Orthodox church not judge it for this fault? If you point out a terrible criminal, such as a murderer or a robber, proving him to be a great evildoer guilty of many iniquities, and yet judges, policemen, and others, who hear and know of his crimes, do not arrest or judge him, then these very authorities become guilty themselves, transgressing the law that requires judging and punishing criminals. Similarly, if, as you claim, the Old Ritualist church is guilty for lacking an Orthodox bishop for one hundred and eighty years, if this is a terrible crime or heresy, and yet your New Ritualist church, knowing this, does not judge it, then your church itself becomes guilty, becoming a transgressor for failing to judge the Old Ritualist church for this supposed grievous crime of lacking an Orthodox bishop for a few years. But your church does not judge it for this occurrence, not because it refrains from judging, but because there is nothing to judge. No one can judge events governed by God Himself. The ancient holy fathers and ecumenical councils never condemned churches that were without bishops due to a bishop’s lapse into heresy. Far from condemning them, they acknowledged them as Orthodox and honored them with great praise. For instance, when Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, fell into heresy, and the Orthodox Christians of the Constantinopolitan church were left without a bishop, the Roman Pope and other hierarchs did not consider these Christians to have fallen, nor did they regard that church as heretical; on the contrary, they deemed them fully Orthodox, constituting the church of God (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 395). Similarly, when the bishops of Little Russia lapsed into union with Rome, and the Orthodox church was left without bishops, it was described in the book On Faith as being “blind, like a body without eyes” (ch. 23, fol. 213). Yet Patriarch Meletius of Alexandria did not call this church heretical but recognized it as fully Orthodox. (See his epistles in the book of Cyril of Jerusalem).
Thus, if neither the ancient Orthodox church nor your New Ritualist church ever judged a church for the absence of bishops, then I ask: how can the Old Ritualist church be condemned for this circumstance? How can one accuse the innocent for the faults of others? Can the Old Ritualist church be blamed or judged because bishops fell into heresy, while it did not? Is it just to condemn and reproach it for holding steadfast to the Orthodox faith, even when bishops were unable to draw it into heresy, and thus it remained without them? If you accuse the Old Ritualist church because bishops fell into heresy, while it, preserving the Orthodox faith, remained without them, then first accuse the Orthodox Constantinopolitan church, which for some time was without a bishop when Nestorius fell into heresy. Accuse the Little Russian church for being without a bishop for several years and, by its own account, being “like a body without eyes” when bishops fell into union with Rome. Accuse also the entire ancient Orthodox church, for it had full communion with those churches that were temporarily without bishops.
Furthermore, I must say this: if you consider the Old Ritualist church guilty for lacking a bishop for one hundred and eighty years, though it still had priests, deacons, and laypeople who remained Orthodox during that time, then how much more guilty is your own New Ritualist church, which not only lacked bishops but also had neither priests, deacons, nor even laypeople for an entire one thousand six hundred fifty-three years—indeed, it did not even exist! Your New Ritualist church appeared only in the 1650s; before that, it was nonexistent. Just as the Arian church did not exist before Arius, the Novatian church before Novatus, and the Luciferian church before Lucifer, so too did the Nikonian church not exist before Nikon. Just as the Novatian church emerged only when Novatus introduced his heresies, so too did the Nikonian church arise only when Nikon introduced his innovations. If Nikon had introduced no innovations and had held to the old church traditions, then your New Ritualist church would not exist; there would only be the Old Ritualist church as before.
The Old Ritualist church traces its origins to Christ. Until Nikon’s time, it was in communion with many bishops. However, from Nikon’s time onward, when the other bishops fell into heresy, it was left without bishops until Metropolitan Ambrose joined it. We were without bishops during this period because they had deviated into heresies and cursed Orthodox Christians for holding to Orthodox church traditions. In response, we broke all ecclesiastical communion with them. Your New Ritualist church did not exist before Nikon because the former Orthodox church condemns you as heretics for your heresies and innovations. Likewise, you anathematize the Orthodox traditions it maintained and therefore have no ecclesiastical communion or connection with it. While we may not have had an Orthodox bishop, the church itself remained Orthodox: its priests, deacons, and laypeople were all Orthodox. But you, though having bishops, have heretical bishops, as well as heretical priests, deacons, and laypeople, making your entire church heretical. Just as the Novatians and Donatists had bishops but were heretical due to their heresies, so too are you heretical despite having bishops.
Thus, the Old Ritualist church, from Christ until the mid-seventeenth century, was with Orthodox bishops; from the mid-seventeenth century until Metropolitan Ambrose, it was without Orthodox bishops; from Metropolitan Ambrose’s time until now, it has once again been with Orthodox bishops. Your New Ritualist church, however, did not exist for over sixteen hundred and fifty years; then, beginning in the 1650s, it emerged with bishops, but they were heretical bishops, and to this day—almost two hundred and fifty years later—it has not had a single Orthodox bishop. Even if it had bishops, they would be heretics, and there seems to be no hope for improvement, as your church is content with heretical bishops, showing neither care nor desire to have Orthodox bishops, so long as they are bishops.
New Ritualist: You argue that all bishops can fall into error, yet the church will not be destroyed, and God’s promise will not be broken. But if that is the case, then not only bishops but all priests, deacons, and laypeople might fall into error. How, then, will the church endure, and how will God’s promise of its unassailability and Christ’s abiding presence with the faithful be fulfilled? This is a question to which you will never give a satisfactory answer.
Old Ritualist: We say that all bishops can fall into error because they indeed fell during Nikon’s time. As for whether all priests and laypeople could fall into heresy, it is unnecessary to speculate, as there has never been a time when all priests and laypeople fell into heresy. To debate whether something that has never occurred might happen is un-Christian, the conduct of cunning or malicious people. However, to prevent you from thinking we evade your question, I will remind you of what we have already proven: both bishops, as well as priests and laypeople, can fall into error, or they can maintain the Orthodox faith. According to the teachings of the holy fathers, this depends on their free will, for God compels no one to do good or to uphold the Orthodox faith forcibly.
Now let us demonstrate that your teaching—that God is obliged to save people from falling even against their will, forcibly holding them in the Orthodox faith to fulfill His promise—is nothing short of blasphemous and audacious. In the commentary on the prophet Hosea, we read:
“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ‘Ye are not My people,’ there it shall be said unto them, ‘Ye are the sons of the living God’” (Hosea 1:10).
Commentary: The prophet here anticipates objections that hypocrites are always ready to raise. They accuse God of lying if He does not save them, because they attribute to themselves the name of sons of the church and therefore presume they cannot perish. Thus, the Israelites could say to the prophet—as they undoubtedly did—‘God promised that His church would remain forever; we constitute that church; therefore, we are safe, for God cannot deny Himself. Otherwise, where would His promise to Abraham be: that thy seed shall be as the sand of the sea?’
The prophet, knowing he was dealing with proud people accustomed even to disputing with God Himself, says: ‘Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured.’ As if he said, ‘When God cuts you off from the root, even then the promise to Abraham shall remain unbreakable: “Look now toward heaven and count the stars, if thou be able to number them: so shall thy seed be.” For it is within His omnipotent will to raise up a new church in an instant, one that shall surpass in number the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea. And from what shall He do this? From stones, from nothing: “He calls those things which are not as though they were”’ (Romans 4:17).
The prophet Isaiah in chapter 10 of his prophecy says: “Though the people of Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant shall be saved.” But Hosea speaks even more plainly here, showing that the Israelites will be reduced to such fewness that they will seem as though they are nothing; yet even then, the Lord, beyond all human expectation, shall rebuild His church and prove that He did not promise in vain to Abraham that his seed would be as numerous as the sands of the sea.
Let us add the following note: Since the Lord governs His church in this world in various ways—sometimes, as it were, shutting it in the grave, sometimes raising it from death, sometimes pruning it down to the root (in its outward appearance), and at other times restoring it anew—it behooves us to refrain from judging the Lord’s governance of His church by our own feelings or carnal reasoning. For the church’s salvation is often hidden from the minds and eyes of men. The Lord does not bind Himself to human means, nor to the ordinary order of nature, but wills by His power to surpass everything the minds of men may imagine. Therefore, we must understand this passage accordingly: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea” (Commentary on the Twelve Prophets by Archbishop Irenaeus of Pskov, part 1, fol. 13 verso and 14 verso).
Here is your answer to your question about whether all priests and laypeople can err, and how, in that case, God’s promises will be fulfilled. Even if people are cut off from the root, His promises remain unbroken. To claim otherwise is to dispute with God Himself and to make Him responsible for human sins and iniquities, which is evident impiety.