Who Separates from the Church? #
New Ritualist: No matter how you justify yourselves, you are still schismatics and cut off from God. The holy martyr Cyprian of Carthage teaches: “He who does not have the church as his mother does not have God as his father.” You clearly separated from the church, and therefore it is not your mother.
Old Ritualist: It was not we who separated from the church, but you.
New Ritualist: How so? Explain.
Old Ritualist: I will answer with a question: by what means does one separate from the church?
New Ritualist: Explain it yourself.
Old Ritualist: One separates from tangible things by moving away or creating some distance from them. But one separates from the church not by physical distance or visibly moving away, but by departing from the Orthodox faith and accepting heresies. Whoever departs from the Orthodox faith and embraces heresies is the one who has separated from the church; the more heresies they accept, the further they distance themselves from it. The holy Apostle Jude, the brother of the Lord, speaks of heretics who separate themselves from the church: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 1:19, reading 78). For, as Blessed Jerome teaches, “The more deeply one is entrenched in heretical false teaching, the further they depart from the Lord” (Commentary on Isaiah, ch. 22, verse 3, part 7), since “heresy separates any person from the church”, as affirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Acts, p. 93).
New Ritualist: It is true that heresy separates one from the church and from God, but one must not separate from bishops before they are judged, even if they err; yet you Old Ritualists separated from the bishops before a conciliar judgment was passed on them.
Old Ritualist: Now let us ask: in the time of Nikon and after him, which church accepted heresies and innovations and holds them—was it the Old Ritualist or the New Ritualist church? If it was the Old Ritualist church, then it separated itself from the true church of Christ. But if it was the New Ritualist church, then it is the one that separated. I will not argue here that your church accepted and maintains heresies, thus separating itself from the true church of Christ, as that is not the point of our discussion now. I merely direct your attention to the fact that the Old Ritualist church did not accept or maintain any heresies or errors, as even its enemies have acknowledged. Therefore, it did not and does not separate itself from the church of Christ.
As for its breaking communion with the bishops who fell into heresy, it merely fulfilled the divine teaching of the holy Apostle Paul: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11, reading 302). This is also supported by the ruling of the holy local council known as the First-Second Council, or Double Council. Its canons state that priests should not separate from a bishop, and bishops should not separate from a metropolitan, nor metropolitans from a patriarch, before a conciliar judgment is passed on them, even if they know that they have committed some sin, such as murder, sacrilege, or similar. But this council concludes with the following ruling:
This is decreed and confirmed regarding those who, under the pretense of certain accusations, depart from their superiors, cause schisms, and break the unity of the church. But as for those who separate from a superior due to some heresy condemned by the holy councils or by the fathers, when, that is, the superior openly preaches heresy and teaches it publicly in the church—those who guard themselves from communion with such a bishop, even before a conciliar judgment, not only are not subject to the penalties established by the canons, but are worthy of honor befitting the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops but false bishops and false teachers, and have not broken the unity of the church by schism, but have taken care to protect the church from schisms and divisions (Canon 15).
Similarly, this is stated in the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council: “We must always render honor and due respect to all who think rightly, especially spiritual fathers and teachers. But if it happens that those who ought to be teachers impart to their listeners doctrines concerning faith that corrupt the hearing and hearts of all, then the established relationships must necessarily change, and subordinates must expose the false teachers” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 744).
Old Ritualist: First, you have no proof that one may separate from a single heretical bishop but not from many, for nowhere is this written. Second, if the canon speaks of separating from a bishop, it does not mean that only one bishop can fall into heresy and not many. It mentions a single bishop because each priest and every Christian is under the authority of only one bishop, not several. Therefore, even if many bishops fall into error, each Christian essentially separates from his own bishop. Third, the canon itself states that if many bishops fall into error, Orthodox Christians should separate from them. It says that they (Orthodox Christians) condemned not bishops but false bishops and false teachers, implying many, not just one. Finally, some translations of the canon explicitly mention separating from many bishops, not just one. In the Enlightener by the venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, we read: “Those who withdraw from communion with bishops who have fallen into heresy not only are not subject to prohibition by the Canons, but are worthy of honor befitting the Orthodox, for they have rejected not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and have not destroyed the unity of the Church but have sought to remove schisms and divisions within the Church.” (Enlightener, Twelfth Word).\footnote{St. Joseph Volokolamsk, The Enlightener. Independently published (Amazon Publishing), 2024, p. 280.* Therefore, if the Old Ritualists separated from the episcopacy for the sake of heresy, they are not guilty in the least.
Furthermore, it is clear from the canon that Orthodox Christians and priests who break communion with heretical bishops remain within the church. The rule states that they preserved the church from schisms and divisions. The question arises: which church did they preserve? Clearly, the one in which they remained, not the one that heretical bishops deviated into. Therefore, the true church is the one in which Orthodox Christians and priests remain, having broken communion with the heretical bishops. And such a church is precisely the Old Ritualist one.
You also said that Orthodox Christians, after separating from heretical bishops, must necessarily join Orthodox bishops. But this is not always required. The holy church teaching states that if some bishops fall into error, Orthodox Christians should join the remaining Orthodox bishops. However, if it is not just some bishops but all who fall into heresy, then an Orthodox Christian is obliged to adhere to antiquity, to the ancient Orthodox faith, and hold to it. Thus, the ancient teacher of the church, Vincent of Lerins, teaches: “What should a Catholic Christian do if some part of the church is cut off from the universal faith? He must prefer the health of the whole body to the infected and corrupted part. But if some new contagion seeks to stain not just a part of the church but the entire church at once, then he should make it his concern to cleave to antiquity, which cannot be seduced by any deceit of novelty” (Commonitorium, ch. 3, pp. 17-18). This directly refutes your view. You say that when Orthodox Christians break communion with heretical bishops, they are doomed unless they find Orthodox bishops. But Vincent of Lerins clearly states that in such a case, they should cleave to antiquity, to the ancient holy faith and traditions, and thus they do not cease to be Orthodox Christians, the true Orthodox church. This is exactly what happened with the Old Ritualists. By breaking communion with the heretical bishops, they adhered to antiquity, meaning they remained in the ancient Orthodox faith and church, and thus they are truly the church of Christ.
Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that when the Old Ritualists recognized the bishops’ heresy, they did not remain alone; they were with Bishop Paul of Kolomna, who was soon deprived of life by Nikon. Thus, even if we interpret the 15th canon of the First-Second Council as you do, it still justifies the Old Ritualists.
From all that has been said, it is clear that the Old Ritualists did not separate from the church. If they broke communion with bishops who fell into heresy, they did so without breaking any rules but rather by fulfilling them, and thus they cannot be subject to any accusation or condemnation. It is also clear that Orthodox Christians are obligated to separate from heretical bishops—that is, to “pluck out the offending eye” even before a conciliar judgment.
Thus, calling bishops the “head” of the church, or its “eyes,” does not prove that all bishops are incapable of falling into heresy, nor that the church cannot, as a result, be temporarily without them. Therefore, your citations were in vain.
Do you not have clearer and more convincing evidence to support your ideas? If so, please present it.