On the Runaway Priests #
New Ritualist: You claim that the teachings of the holy fathers condemn the factions of runaway priests because they lack a bishop. Yet before Ambrose came to you, you also had no bishop, and were thus without one yourselves. Therefore, you are guilty of the same fault as they are. If you are right, then so are they, and indeed, they may be even more right than you, for they have steadfastly held to the acceptance of priests who ran away from our Orthodox Church and continue to do so. You, however, separated from them by accepting a metropolitan and establishing a hierarchy for yourselves.
Old Ritualist: You argue with partiality and lack sound judgment. When the Old Ritualists, from the time of Nikon to the coming of Metropolitan Ambrose, had no Orthodox bishops anywhere, only erring ones, they were in the right to remain without a bishop; the teachings of the holy fathers, which command having Orthodox bishops and submitting to them, could not condemn the Old Ritualists, for there was none to have or submit to—there were no Orthodox bishops. But once Orthodox bishops were present in the Old Ritualist Church, then anyone who does not submit to them falls under the condemnation laid out by the holy fathers.
To clarify, let me explain with an example. You are surely aware that the Seventh Ecumenical Council anathematized all who refuse to venerate the holy icons. But imagine that some Orthodox Christians were taken captive by unbelievers or imprisoned in a place where it was impossible to have icons, and therefore prayed without them. Later, when they returned to freedom, they informed their spiritual fathers that they had long prayed without venerating the holy icons, as they had no access to them. Should they fall under the anathema against those who do not venerate the holy icons? Certainly, the answer would be that not only are they not subject to condemnation, but they are worthy of praise and honor for having prayed to God in such restrictive circumstances, even without icons. Now, imagine further that one of them, seeing that he was not condemned but honored for his time without icons, chose to continue without venerating icons despite now having them freely before him. To him, it would rightly be said that he is under the curse of the Seventh Ecumenical Council as one who does not venerate the holy icons. If he responded, “Why was I not cursed before when I did not venerate icons?” he would be told, “You were in the right when you had no icons, but now that you have them and do not venerate them, you are inevitably subject to the anathema of the Seventh Council.” And if, in pride, he ignored these fair rebukes and began to reproach his brother, who had been with him in captivity, for changing his ways—first not venerating, then venerating—would such actions and reproaches be just?
New Ritualist: Clearly, they would not be just.
Old Ritualist: Likewise, the present-day factions of runaway priests, who refuse to submit to the Orthodox bishops of the Belokrinitskaya Metropolia and reproach those who do, are acting unjustly. If there were no Old Ritualist bishops—bishops whom even they consider fully Orthodox—they would be in the right. But since there are Orthodox bishops, and they do not submit to them, they are undoubtedly guilty and in violation of the teachings of the holy fathers, who firmly command submission to Orthodox bishops. Concerning such cases, Christ the Savior said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin” (John 15:22, reading 52).
Moreover, fairness and impartiality require it to be said that the current factions of runaway priests do not hold to the same beliefs about the episcopate that the Old Ritualist Church held from the time of Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose. At that time, the leading representatives of the Church expressed sorrow that the bishops were in heresy and that they, therefore, were without the guidance of Orthodox bishops, and they sought earnestly to bring any one of them to the Orthodox faith. Thus, in 1719, the Old Ritualists, in the responses of the deacons, declared, “We earnestly desire and ask the Lord God that Orthodox bishops may remain until the end of the world, and that those who have departed from Orthodoxy may be restored to it” (response to question 47; Notes of Alexander B., vol. 2, p. 268). Likewise, in 1730, the Vetka Old Ritualists petitioned the Metropolitan of Jassy to ordain a bishop for them (manuscript collection on the Vetka Church). And again in 1734, they received Bishop Epiphanius through the second rite of chrismation.
Therefore, the Old Ritualists, from the time of Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, always desired and strove to have an Orthodox bishop, proving this wish both by word and by deed. Meanwhile, today’s factions of runaway priests, entirely contrary to the beliefs and convictions of the previous Old Ritualists, show no desire to have an Orthodox bishop or to submit to one; not only do they not strive to receive a bishop converted from heresy, but they also reject even those who have converted, refusing stubbornly to accept those ordained by him or to have communion with them.
From this, it is clear that it was not we who departed from our forefathers, but rather the runaway priests. By accepting Metropolitan Ambrose, we only attained that which our pious ancestors—the Old Ritualist Church of Christ—had always sought to achieve: the presence of Orthodox bishops. The present-day factions of runaway priests have entirely rejected these bishops, whom our forefathers so earnestly desired and endeavored to have, forefathers whom they themselves also acknowledge as pious and regard as their own.