Debate Between Konovalov and Antipin: On the Reception of Heretics and On Division #

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

First Conversation. #

Subject of the conversation: “On Receiving from Heretics” and “On Division”.

Antipin asked Konovalov: “How do you receive from the Nikonian heretics?”

KONOVALOV: “We receive according to the Potrebnik, by the third rite, with a renunciation of the heresies.”

ANTIPIN: “But in the Potrebnik, all the actions for receiving from heresies are appointed only for sacred persons; and you have no sacred persons.
Therefore, the question is posed to you: On what basis do you, as laymen, without sacred persons, take it upon yourselves to perform the third rite from the Potrebnik on your own accord?

And show where in Scripture there is a commandment that even laymen alone may receive [others] according to the third rite of the Potrebnik, with a renunciation of the heresies?

And on what basis, by such a form of reception, do you separate yourselves from us, and thereby tear apart the Church of God?”

KONOVALOV: “We do not receive [them] of our own accord, but according to Scripture; and apart from Scripture, no one is permitted to do anything. Whoever acts apart from Scripture is a thief and a robber. In the Gospel of John, reading from the 35th zachalo (pericope), we find: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.’

(According to the commentary:) ‘Truly, the Scriptures are the doors—for by them we are brought to God. A thief, then, is he who does not enter the sheepfold by the Scriptures.’ (Blagovestnik, p. 165).

In accordance with this, we act according to the canons of the holy fathers.

Canon 7 of the Council of Laodicea says: ‘The Novatians, and the Photinians, and the Quartodecimans—these heretics—unless they anathematize other heresies along with their own, are not to be received. But if they do anathematize them, then, being anointed with chrism, let them partake [of the Mysteries].’
(Kormchaia, chapter 10)

Also, Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council: ‘The Quartodecimans, also called Tetradites, the Arians, Novatians, and Apollinarians—after giving a written renunciation [of their errors], let them be received, anointing only all their senses.’
(Kormchaia)

Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: ‘Those converting from heresies are received in this manner: Arians, Macedonians, Novatians—also called the Pure, Nestorians, Quartodecimans (who are also the Tetradites), Apollinarians, Eutychians, Severians, and those of similar heresies—if they anathematize all heresies, including their own (according to the commentary), the Nestorians, Eutychians, Severians, and those from other heresies, and similar ones, after anathematizing their own and all others, and being content with this alone, are deemed suitable for communion.’
(Kormchaia, chapter 17)

On the basis of these divine canons of the holy fathers, we act precisely as the holy fathers have prescribed, and not of our own will. Therefore, you wrongly accuse us of acting willfully. It is not surprising that one can accuse with empty words however one wishes—but such an accusation falls with all its weight upon the accusers themselves. It is necessary not to speak without proof, but to demonstrate from Scripture.

As the venerable Nikon of the Black Mountain teaches: ‘For this reason, in all that we say and do, we are bound to have testimony from the divine Scriptures, lest we be led astray by human reasoning, and fall from the straight path into the pit of destruction.’
(Nikon of the Black Mountain, fol. 12 verso)

Thus the holy father teaches that we must always be strictly guided by Holy Scripture, and we, for our part, act in all things in accordance with this, just as I have shown—that we act rightly and lawfully in everything, in full accordance with Holy Scripture and the canons of the holy fathers.”

ANTIPIN: “You cited the canons of the holy fathers—Canon 7 of the Council of Laodicea, Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council—in your defense, as though you truly act in accordance with the canons. But in reality, the canons you referenced do not justify you in the least—they rather condemn you. This is because in all those canons it is stated: ‘after the renunciation of heresies, they are anointed with chrism’—and although in the last cited Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council you did not read this part, it is stated there as well.

And from these canons it is clearly indicated that all the actions prescribed belong exclusively to sacred persons; and there is not even a mention of laymen in them. Only sacred persons have the authority to anoint with chrism; and in the very same place, immediately after the renunciation of heresies, they were anointed— as is clearly stated in Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: ‘Those converting from heresies are received in this manner’— here the Council says, ‘are received in this manner’ referring to themselves, that is, to persons of equal and similar sacred rank, and not to laymen.

Further we read: ‘Arians, Macedonians, and Novatians (who are also called the Pure), Nestorians and Quartodecimans (who are the Tetradites), Apollinarians, Eutychians, Severians, and those from similar heresies—after anathematizing all heresies, including their own—we anoint with holy chrism the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, signing them while saying, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”’

The Council says: ‘we anoint with holy chrism’. Whom is the Council speaking of with the words ‘we anoint’? Clearly, it is speaking of themselves—that is, of all sacred persons of similar rank. Earlier, the Council said ‘we receive in this manner’, and then follows ‘we anoint with holy chrism’— and all these words and actions pertain solely to sacred persons, and do not apply in the least to laymen.

Even though not all who came were anointed with chrism, but some were only required to anathematize their heresies—as you cited from the commentary on Canon 95— yet even the renunciation of heresies in the rite of reception was always performed in the presence of sacred persons, as this is laid out in the rite of reception from heresies in the Potrebnik (Service Book). And from all this, it is plainly evident that you are not acting according to the canons of the holy fathers, but contrary to them—willfully, without sacred persons.”

“Then you also read from the Gospel of John, Zachalo 35: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.’ That is to say, whoever does anything not according to Scripture, that person is a ‘thief and a robber.’ —This is absolutely correct. But the problem is: you did not quote this passage in defense of your position, but rather, unintentionally, in condemnation of it— because you do not act according to Scripture, but contrary to it, as I have shown above…

Then you also read from the book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, folio 12 verso: ‘We are obliged in all that we say and do to have testimony from the Divine Scriptures, lest we be deceived by human reasoning and fall into the pit of destruction.’ All of this is true. But again, all of this you have read against yourselves— because you still have not shown anywhere that ‘it is permissible for laymen, without priests, to receive heretics by the third rite according to the Potrebnik’. You base your practice only on your own reasoning, and by this, you condemn yourselves as guilty.

Therefore, once again, I ask you to answer the question that has been posed to you.”

KONOVALOV: I have shown you that all of us act according to the canons of the holy fathers, but you neither accept nor believe in the canons of the holy fathers—just like an unbeliever. I pointed out to you the 7th canon of the Council of Laodicea, the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the 95th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Yet you refuse to believe in any of them. But you ought to believe, because the canons of the holy fathers should be honored no less than the Gospel itself. This is what is written in the Kormchaia [Book of Canons]: “The canons of the glorious and ever-praised apostles, and of the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, the Church of God honors no less than the Gospel” (Kormchaia, preface to the apostolic canons).

The canons which I cited—the 7th of Laodicea, the 7th of the Second Council, and the 95th of the Sixth Council—you reject because they pertain to the actions of sacred persons only. Indeed, it is true that in the time of piety and fullness [of the Church], these canons were always followed in the rite of reception by sacred persons. But now, where can sacred persons be found? For by our understanding, and yours as well, there are no pious and sacred persons at present. And yet the Church remains—and therefore she must still be governed by the canons according to necessity, even without sacred persons.

It is like baptism and the performance of services: all of these were entrusted to sacred persons. Yet, in the absence of sacred persons, both we and you perform them without any doubt. In the same way, the rite of reception ought also to be performed. Moreover, the canons of the holy fathers are to be kept not only by sacred persons, but by all Christians until the end of the age.

“For the same Holy Spirit acted in the local and Ecumenical Councils, and it is proper that Christians should preserve their canons even until the end of the age, and not excuse themselves on account of sins. And if anyone dares to diminish or forbid any of the divine canons, he is guilty.” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, fol. 543)

And further: “Whoever treats with negligence the holy and divine canons of our divine fathers, which support the holy Church, adorn the entire Christian life, and guide us to divine reverence—Anathema.” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, fol. 559 verso)

You see how terrifying the anathema is upon all who do not perform the rite of reception with the renunciation of heresies according to the canons. And such a rite can be performed even without priests, as is evident from the Kormchaia, chapter 70: “We find three rites for those coming to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God.” And further: “And the third rite is for those who are neither baptized nor anointed, but only renounce their own heresy and every heresy.” You see how clearly it is indicated that there are three rites for those coming from heresies into the Church, and the third rite consists of the renunciation of heresies. And nothing here is said about sacred persons, only about the Church. And since the Church still exists, it follows that we have the right and are obliged to receive [converts] by this rite of renunciation.

Moreover, in the Potrebnik as well, the renunciation is to be done in the presence of the Church. We read: “If he is literate and understands the language, then let him speak for himself. But if he does not understand the language, then all this is to be said by an interpreter before the Church.” (Potrebnik, fol. 4, Jedinoe edition, printed.) You see how clear it is—like daylight—that the renunciation according to the Potrebnik can be performed by the convert himself, in the presence of the Church, without a priest. And the Church, according to Scripture, is “the assembly of the faithful.” And we always conduct the rite of renunciation during such an assembly of the faithful, exactly as prescribed in the Potrebnik and in full agreement with the canons of the holy fathers.

Furthermore, [this next word is blotted, possibly “to renounce” or “reproach”] heresies is possible even without priests. We read in the Gospel: “If a heretic sincerely repents, confesses his heresy, and renounces it along with all other heresies, then he is immediately granted communion in the holy Mysteries.” (Blagovestnik, Gospel of John, Zachalo 44, fol. 218.) You see, it is clearly stated here that any heretic who comes and on his own renounces [his heresy], is thereby cleansed and becomes pure and holy, worthy of receiving the holy Mysteries. But without the renunciation of heresies, there is absolutely no way to be cleansed.

And in another Gospel reading we find: “Keeping and observing the ancient tradition of the catholic Church, and following the first-established traditions, statutes, and laws of the holy and God-bearing fathers… those whom they gave over to anathema, we also anathematize; and those whom they cut off or cast out, we likewise reject. This is the faith of the holy apostles, this is the faith of the holy fathers, such is the faith of all the Orthodox…” And whosoever does not think thus—let him be anathema. (Evangelion, First Sunday of Lent, fols. 39 and 42.)

You see what clear proofs indicate that it is possible for anyone to pronounce a renunciation, even without priests, as it is said: “Those whom the holy fathers anathematized, we also anathematize.” And this is the very faith of the holy Apostles and the holy Fathers—that all heretics must be anathematized. And whoever does not anathematize them is himself accursed, as it is written: “But whosoever does not think thus—let him be anathema.”

There you have, A. A. [Andrey Alekseyevich], my proofs. Take heed—your faith has turned out to be false, and you yourself are under a curse for not anathematizing heretics.

ANTIPIN: We have listened to your second speech, A. A., in which you said a great deal and quoted from Scripture, but you did not answer my question. You did not point to a single place in Holy Scripture which shows that it is permissible for laymen alone to receive others by the third rite from the Potrebnik, with the renunciation of heresies. You spoke at great length—much of it incorrectly—and I will attempt to refute your errors one by one.

First, you said that I do not accept or believe in the canons of the holy fathers which you cited in your first speech on the rite of reception, and that I reject them like an unbeliever. And to support this, you read the statement: “The Church of God honors the canons no less than the Gospel.” That is absolutely true—that the canons of the holy fathers ought to be honored. But your accusation against me—that I supposedly do not accept or believe in the canons of the holy fathers, like an unbeliever—is false and slanderous.

This false and very bold accusation you made in front of the whole assembly is refuted as follows: I have never rejected the canons of the holy fathers—not even in thought. On the contrary, I have always believed in them, honored them, and accepted them. If I do not agree to accept them in the way you interpret them, then I am not rejecting the canons of the holy fathers, but only your incorrect interpretation of them. And there is a great difference between the canons of the holy fathers and your interpretation.

Your interpretation is as follows: that supposedly, according to the canons—Canon 7 of Laodicea, Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council—it is permitted for laymen alone to receive [converts] by the third rite according to the Potrebnik. But according to my understanding, based on those same canons, such actions are entrusted to and can only be carried out by sacred persons. In fact, you yourself admitted as much when you said that in the times of piety, the rites of reception were always carried out by sacred persons. Therefore, by your own admission, it is clear that you yourself are wandering incorrectly in your interpretation of the canons of the holy fathers, while my understanding remains faithful.

Then you said that since sacred persons no longer exist but the Church remains, the Church must therefore be governed by the canons as needed, and without priests—just as with the performance of baptism and the services—so too, you claim, should it be in the matter of the rite of reception. But such an understanding is incorrect, because it is permitted in cases of necessity for a layman to perform baptism or certain services—this is directly commanded by the holy fathers. However, that in cases of necessity, laymen may receive others by the third rite without priests—such a command is nowhere found in the Scriptures.

You also cited Nikon of the Black Mountain (folios 543 and 559 verso), saying that the canons of the holy fathers must be preserved by all Christians until the end of the age, and that “Whoever treats the divine and holy canons with negligence, and does not lead others to godly reverence—Anathema.” But you gave this passage an incorrect and arbitrary interpretation, claiming: “Those who do not perform the rite of reception with renunciation of heresies are terribly subject to anathema.” Yet in the very place you read from Nikon of the Black Mountain, there is no such thing! It only says that the canons should be kept and not violated, and that whoever violates them—upon him is anathema.

And the canons are violated when someone does something on his own initiative—without the authorization of holy Scripture. And so, by such self-willed action, the canons are indeed broken.

Let us take for example the first canon of the holy apostles: “Let two or three bishops ordain a bishop.” This canon gives only bishops the authority to ordain another bishop; nothing is said here about laymen. But now, suppose that in a time of necessity, in the absence of bishops, laymen were to take it upon themselves to ordain a bishop, desiring to fulfill this canon out of supposed necessity and to preserve it—would they in fact be preserving that first canon by doing so?

Clearly, for all to see, such an act by laymen would not preserve, but violate the first canon, precisely because they acted on their own, without authorization. The same applies to the rite of reception: we have already seen that according to all the canons, the act of receiving heretics by any rite is entrusted only to sacred persons, and there is no command given to laymen. Therefore, you now, acting without the command of holy Scripture, are acting on your own authority, and thus, you are not keeping the canons—you are breaking all the above-cited canons of the holy fathers. And anathema lies upon all who do anything of their own will.

You also claimed that, according to the Gospel, heresies can be renounced without priests, and that such renunciation makes a person holy. But your understanding is incorrect, because this is nowhere written explicitly—rather, the meaning is quite the opposite, if you would only listen carefully. I will read: “For when a heretic sincerely repents and confesses his heresy and renounces it along with other heresies, then he is immediately given communion in the holy Mysteries.” (Blagovestnik, Gospel of John, fol. 218). Here it says: “then he is immediately given communion in the holy Mysteries,” and from this it is clear that the renunciation must take place in such a context and before such persons as are capable of giving communion—that is, in the presence of the visible Church and priests. Nowhere in Scripture do we see that a person is cleansed from heresy by renunciation alone, and the Gospel passage you quoted says nothing about “cleansing by renunciation”; rather, it speaks more of repentance: “For when a heretic sincerely repents…”

And in the Potrebnik, there is similar instruction, showing that even during the renunciation of heresies, cleansing was not by the act of renunciation itself, but by repentance. I read: “Such as renounce their own and other heresies which they once heeded and did not condemn, and who are washed from those heresies by sincere repentance and by the prayer of a presbyter—as is prescribed—thus they are admitted to communion in the holy Mysteries.” (Potrebnik, chapter 80, fols. 73 and 74). Therefore, it is clearly proven that one is always cleansed from heresy not by renunciation, but by repentance. And you ought to better understand that this instruction is found in the Potrebnik within the rite of reception by the third rite.

You also quoted from the Sunday Gospel and gave special meaning to the words: “Those whom they delivered to anathema, we also anathematize.” You interpret the phrase “we also” as though it applies to yourselves—that is, that all of you laypeople may pronounce anathemas whenever you wish. But here you are greatly mistaken. The phrase “we also anathematize” refers to the author of that homily—namely, to St. Leontius, Pope of Rome—and it is not about the rite of reception at all, but about the “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” that is, how in former times the Triumph of Orthodoxy was celebrated everywhere on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

I will read from that same place, folio 37 verso: “On this day, here and everywhere, the assemblies of the Orthodox are gathered.” And later, folio 39: “For this reason we celebrate this day, offering eternal memory to the Orthodox emperors… and we hand over the impious heretics to anathema… Following the tradition of the holy fathers… Those whom they delivered to anathema, we also anathematize.” You see how clearly it is shown how the Triumph of Orthodoxy was celebrated: that is, in cathedral churches, in the fullness of the hierarchy, eternal memory was proclaimed to all who labored for piety, and anathemas were pronounced upon all heretics.

Such an act does not happen among you now and cannot happen, because you have no hierarchy. Thus you wrongly cited this in your defense—it has no relevance at all to your self-willed rite of reception.

Moreover, you said: “That all are required to pronounce anathemas—that this is the very holy faith—and that whoever does not anathematize is himself accursed.” And you offered me a “clarification,” so that I might be enlightened according to your understanding, implying that otherwise my faith is incorrect and that I am under a curse. But such reasoning of yours is nothing more than vain talk! The passage in question speaks of holy faith, not anathema. It refers to belief in the One God—but you skipped that part, and as a result, fell into this delusion.

Now listen—I will read the same folio 42: “This is the faith of the holy Apostles, this is the faith of the holy Fathers, this is the faith of all Orthodox, this is the faith which has established the universe. We believe in One God, who is worshipped in the Trinity, and we venerate the holy icons. And whosoever does not think thus—let him be anathema.”

Do you see what the holy faith consists in? It is to believe in the One God in the Trinity—not in self-willed rites of anathema. Therefore, it is not I who needs to be instructed, but you yourselves who first need to be instructed—to understand and believe rightly according to the teaching of the holy Fathers, and thereby free yourselves from the curse of the holy Fathers. The anathema that you read applies to those who misunderstand the faith, and you yourselves are the ones misunderstanding it—and you offer those misunderstandings of yours with exclamations like: “Here, A.A., are my proofs.” But in reality, upon examination, all your proofs are unfounded. They do not justify you—they only further condemn you for self-willed reception rites.

Therefore, I again ask you: answer my earlier question with a firm foundation. On what basis do you, as laymen, without sacred persons, take it upon yourselves to receive others by the third rite of the Potrebnik? Show me where in Scripture there is a commandment allowing laymen alone to receive by the third rite according to the Potrebnik?

KONOVALOV: I have offered much proof, but you believe none of it; you are a man without faith, as I have said before. You have reinterpreted all my proofs according to your own understanding—but such private interpretation is not allowed; the holy fathers forbid it. Listen to what we read in the 19th canon of the Sixth Council: “Let the church elder teach the people daily, and especially every Sunday, the divine commandments, and let him not speak of himself, but according as the divine fathers have handed down.” The interpretation continues: “If someone should ask them [about doctrine]… let them not speak from their own mind, but as the Church teachers have interpreted in their writings.” See, then, how clearly the holy fathers forbid one to interpret Scripture or tradition according to one’s own reasoning. But you have interpreted everything according to your own understanding.

In my previous speech, I proved that according to the 70th chapter of the Kormchaia and according to the Potrebnik, leaf 4, the rite of anathema can be performed without priests, so long as it is done before the Church—that is, before the people. But you twisted this and said, “Before the Church means before the visible church building.” Yet according to Scripture, the Church is not the stone temple, but the believing people! Listen—here is what we read in the Little Catechism, leaf 24:

“Question: What is the Church?
Answer: The Church is the assembly of the faithful of God, united in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in the confession of the faith.”

And again in the Book of Nikon, part on the Taktikon, leaf 134: “The catholic Church is not walls, but the true teachings and the traditions of the divine canons and of the holy apostles.”

And according to the teaching of the universal teacher, St. John Chrysostom: “The Church is not walls and a roof, but life and faith. The Church is not the church walls, but the Church laws.” (Margarit, Word 10, leaf 38)

So you see how clearly it is proved that the Church is not the stone temple, but the believing people. And it is before such a Church that we perform the rite of reception [or: rite of anathema]. But you do not believe this testimony; instead, you say that, according to Scripture, the rite must be done before the stone church, on the porch.

Then I pointed to both the Sunday Gospel and the Gospel used at the Annunciation, to show that all may pronounce anathema—but again, you do not believe it. Yet it is absolutely necessary to believe the Gospel. The Saviour Himself teaches this. We read in the Gospel of Mark, reading 71: “And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

And again in Mark, reading 2: “And He said, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

See how clearly, like the noonday sun, all are called: “Repent, and believe the Gospel—and anathematize the heretics.” And you, A.A., while there is yet time, repent and believe the Gospel, and anathematize the heretics. But if you will not listen—then there is no salvation for you. Remember this: that apart from the Gospel, there is only the faith of devils. Listen—we read in the Greater Catechism, leaf 21: “Other faiths are not Orthodox, for they are not founded in the Word of God… Therefore, nothing else can be said of them but that they are vain, false, and are called demonic.”

Such is the dreadful doom for all who do not listen and are not grounded in Scripture to anathematize heretics. For because of this refusal, their entire faith becomes demonic. Consider this well, A.A.

Here is yet another testimony from the Book of Nikon, Part on Church Governance (Ch. G.), preface, leaf 4, unnumbered:

“I, though unworthy even of a single word, nevertheless draw near with all my soul and breath to the catholic apostolic Church, and as much as I have received of the holy Scriptures from the holy apostles and holy fathers of the venerable councils, I lovingly receive from the depth of my heart and with much faith… And first of all, I anathematize Nestorius, accursed by thousands, by multitudes I anathematize him… together with him I also anathematize Arius.”

Then further on, we read in the same book, discourse 25, leaf 185:

“A certain lover of Christ asked Father Ioann: If someone says to me, ‘Curse Nestorius and other such heretics’—shall I anathematize them or not?”

Answer: “Since Nestorius and others like him are known to be under a curse, you yourself must not hold back from anathematizing them at all, for being yourself a sinner, you ought to weep over your own sins.”

Question: “And if someone does not do this, arguing that he reasons in the same way as they—what shall I say to him?”

Answer: “Even if it is true that they are indeed worthy of a curse, yet I am more sinful than all men… and how then can such a one as I curse others? But say unto him: if he remains in agreement with them, for the sake of his conscience, anathematize him as a heretic.”

Such is the commandment of the holy fathers: to anathematize heretics. And whoever will not obey the commandment of the holy fathers—such a one is under anathema. In the Kormchaia, chapter 71, we read:

“All that is newly fabricated, whether through Church traditions or teachings or imaginations of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, or those who wish to fabricate something afterward—anathema.”

See how terribly strict the holy fathers were, that all believers should follow the teachings of the holy fathers exactly. And the teaching of the holy fathers is to receive those coming from heresy only with anathema, even if without priests—and for failure to do this, an anathema is laid down.

I do not wish to say that you, A. A., are under anathema—lest I offend you—but only that you ought to fear the anathema, for it separates one from God and delivers one unto the devil, according to the statement of Nikon (Ch. G., leaf 2).

Now, in this present discourse, how many new testimonies I have presented!

ANTIPIN: Yes, indeed, you have said much, but your so-called proofs do not justify you in the least, because you have not presented a single piece of evidence showing “that it is permitted for simple laymen alone to perform the third rite of reception according to the Potrebnik,” in accordance with the question I raised.

First of all, you have once again falsely accused me—claiming that I am some kind of unbeliever and that I interpret the Scriptures according to my own mind, and that I have supposedly misinterpreted the concept of the Church in this way: “That according to the Potrebnik and chapter 71 of the Kormchaia, those who come from heresy must perform the anathema before the visible Church, on the porches, and in the presence of sacred clergy.”

This understanding of mine, you consider arbitrary. And in order to refute it, you have just now brought forth quotations from the Little Catechism, the Margarit, and Nikon of the Black Mountain, stating that “the Church is the gathering of the faithful of God, and that the Church is not the church walls, but the Church’s laws.” All this you have read from writings, which I do not reject—but you understand these scriptural passages about the Church incorrectly, or you deliberately twist them. Your misinterpretation is exposed as follows:

In the passages you have read about the Church—where it says that “the Church is the people and the law”—there is nothing said about the rite of reception, nor about the possibility of performing anathema before the people alone. There is not even a mention of it. But you have reinterpreted it all on your own, without any reference there to chapter 71 of the Kormchaia or the Potrebnik. You have simply muddled everything together—namely, the teaching about the Church in the Catechism, in Chrysostom, in Nikon of the Black Mountain, in the Kormchaia, and in the Potrebnik. But one must not mix things this way, for in these writings there is a great difference in meaning.

Namely: in the passages you read from the Catechism and elsewhere, the Church is understood as “the people and the law,” but there is nothing there about the rite of reception. Whereas in the Kormchaia and the Potrebnik, where the rite of reception is actually addressed, the word “Church” is understood not only as people and law, but as the visible Church with its porches and with its ecclesiastical hierarchy—as I already demonstrated in my previous speech, and will now briefly repeat:

“We now see [the rite performed] in the great conciliar Churches, that is, by patriarchs and metropolitans.” (Kormchaia, chapter 70)

You see, it clearly speaks of visible churches with the full complement of hierarchs—and to such clear evidence you said nothing. And in the Potrebnik, too, regarding the rites of reception, the word “Church” is also understood to mean the visible temple with porches. I read from the Potrebnik, leaves 3 and 4:

“And the priest places whichever of them at the open doors of the Church, bareheaded… The priest first says the words, and the catechumen responds after him to every word… And if he does not understand the language, all these words are spoken by the interpreter before the Church.”

You see, then, how clearly and definitively it is proven that my understanding of the Church is correct—that in the rites of reception, according to the Kormchaia and the Potrebnik, the Church must be understood in its full sense, that is, as the visible Church with its porches and with its hierarchs. And such an understanding of mine is correct and not a willful interpretation. But your notion is entirely the opposite—it is a willful and twisted interpretation, and the 19th canon of the Sixth Council, which you cited, in fact stands as a rebuke to your own position.

Secondly: then you claimed that I do not believe in the Gospel, and you read against me from Mark, readings 71 and 2: “That one should repent and believe the Gospel.” And having read this with enthusiasm, you said: “See how clear it is, like the light of day, that according to the Gospel all must believe and anathematize heretics!” And you summoned me to such repentance, saying that otherwise I shall have no salvation.

But all such reasoning of yours is nothing more than empty babble, and it is astonishing even to behold how you have the audacity to “speak manifest falsehood and slander,” and thus reveal yourself as one who does not rightly believe the Gospel. You said that I do not believe the Gospel—but in what do I not believe? You did not specify. It is easy to make an accusation, but one must also offer proof—and you have not provided any sound evidence whatsoever that I disbelieve the Gospel.

In my previous reply, regarding the Gospel passages you cited—from the Evangelion leaf 218, and the Sunday lectionary leaves 39 and 42—I did not reject them. I only pointed out to you that you do not interpret the Gospel rightly, and to that you made no reply or remark; you simply called me an unbeliever without evidence. And with such empty accusations, you do nothing but expose yourself as a liar.

And now, in the present discourse, you have again read from Mark, readings 71 and 2, but have interpreted them according to your own understanding. You said: “Repent, believe in the Gospel, and anathematize heretics—or else you shall not be saved.” But in the Gospel passage you read, readings 71 and 2, there is not a single word about anathema. You have spoken a manifest falsehood.

Therefore, it is you yourself who are in error, speaking what is not written, and it is you who must call yourself to repentance, in order to understand the Gospel rightly and not to proclaim a false teaching.

Then you said that “whoever does not hold firmly to anathematizing heretics has a demonic faith,” and you read a supposed proof from leaf 21 of the Catechism. But you read this completely in vain. In the Catechism, on that 21st leaf, there is absolutely nothing stating that simple laymen, in the rites of reception, must anathematize, and that if one does not anathematize, he therefore has a demonic faith. Nothing of the sort exists in the Catechism—there is not even the slightest mention of anathema. You have no justification here, and what you said was not from the Scriptures but was a willful invention. And you ought to remember the words you yourself spoke at the beginning of your speech: “Whoever speaks not from Scripture is a thief and a robber.” You ought to fear this saying of the Gospel very greatly, and not utter your own empty babble apart from the Scriptures.

Then you read from the preface of Nikon of the Black Mountain, where it says, “Nestorius, accursed by thousands, I anathematize by multitudes; and Arius likewise.” But this citation in no way justifies your arbitrary rite of reception, because what is written there is not about any rite at all—it is merely a confession of faith by that holy father, a personal one, his alone. For there is no command given there that “all should do the same.”

You also read from the same book, in discourse 25, the questions and answers of St. Ioann concerning anathema. But such testimony likewise does not justify you, for St. Ioann does not teach as you do—that all must necessarily pronounce anathema—but on the contrary, the holy father says concerning anathema: “For Nestorius and others like him are under a curse—but you must not hasten to anathema.” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, leaf 185) And then, though he does permit the use of anathema, it is not for one’s own salvation, but only because of the weakness of a brother. Moreover, this concerns not the rite of reception, but a private anathema—and it is not obligatory for all. You cited this writing in vain; it does not pertain to your case.

Lastly, you cited chapter 71 of the Kormchaia: “All those things which are done contrary to the Church’s tradition and the teaching of the holy fathers are subject to anathema,” and you added that, according to leaf 12 of Nikon of the Black Mountain, anathema delivers one unto the devil. Thus you have already placed me under anathema—because I do not agree with you in performing, of my own will, the rite of reception with anathema.

But such an understanding of yours is deeply mistaken. I could be subject to anathema only if you were to cite a commandment from the holy fathers stating that all, even simple laypeople alone, are required to perform anathema in the rite of reception according to the Potrebnik, and that whoever fails to do this is under anathema. But you have cited no such command from the holy fathers. And if you cannot produce such a written command, then you have no right to willfully place me under anathema.

On the contrary—it is you yourself who are more likely to fall under that very anathema, because the canon says: “Whoever does anything contrary to the tradition of the holy fathers, they are subject to anathema.” And you are doing precisely that—acting contrary to the tradition of the holy fathers. Throughout this debate, I have repeatedly asked you: “Where is it handed down by the holy fathers that simple laymen alone, without priests, may receive others through the third rite of reception according to the Potrebnik?” And in response to my question, you have not read me a single passage from the Scriptures or the fathers showing that you, as simple laypeople, may act in such a way during the rite of reception.

Therefore, according to chapter 71 of the Kormchaia, you yourself are plainly at fault—because you act willfully and without the tradition of the holy fathers. Nowhere in Scripture is it permitted for you, as simple laypeople, to act in such a way. And so, it is you who ought to fear that anathema very greatly.

Having examined all your proofs, I find that there is absolutely nothing in them that justifies your position. And once again, I ask you: prove your case solidly and read from Scripture passages that are fitting—and not in vain.

KONOVALOV: If my previous proofs have not persuaded you, then I offer others from Iosif Volotsky. We read:

“Those who do not know the divine Scriptures are afraid to expose apostasy; but those who have read the divine Scriptures have understood that not only ought heretics and apostates to be condemned, but also anathematized.” (Enlightener, p. 46)

You see how the holy father teaches that only those who are ignorant of the Scriptures are afraid to anathematize heretics. But heretics must be both condemned and anathematized. Therefore, you, A.A., do not know the Scriptures—hence your fear of pronouncing anathema. But we, who do know the Scriptures, always anathematize and teach others to do the same.

Further, we read in Discourse 13, under the heading: “Against the Heresy of the Novgorod Heretics who say that it is not fitting to condemn either heretic or apostate.” There it says:

“One must bring forward the testimony of divine Scripture, that a heretic and apostate must not only be condemned, but also anathematized.” (Enlightener, p. 475)

Further still, on p. 498:

“The heretics say that, even if it be proper to judge or condemn a heretic or apostate, it must be done by a tsar, prince, or bishop… and not by a layman… To such as these, the following is said: how the great Anthony condemned them, saying of the heretics that their words were more poisonous than the venom of serpents,” and further,

on p. 502:

“This is clearly and truly known to all men: that it is fitting for bishops, priests, monks, and laypeople—for all who hold to Christian wisdom—to condemn and anathematize heretics and apostates.”

You see, then, according to the writings, it was only the heretics who taught that anathema may be pronounced only by those in authority and not by all. But the holy father clearly and firmly states that all—even the simple—must anathematize. And so we act according to this teaching.

Further, Theodore the Studite also commands that all should heal heresies with repentance and anathema. We read in part 2, p. 413:

“But since he saw that heresy was gaining the upper hand, he left it to all who wished to bring healing… and this is a work most pleasing to God, who desires all to be saved—how much more so those who resort to the healing of repentance.”

And on p. 415:

“No one condemns such zeal… And whoever hinders this is some destroyer and common enemy of the human race, such that he may be regarded as a co-worker with the murderer of men from the beginning.”

You see what testimonies these are—clear as the light of day—proving that anyone may bring healing from heresy, that is, turn others to the path of truth by repentance joined with anathema. And such a work is very pleasing to God. But whoever seeks to hinder it is a destroyer and a co-worker with the murderer of men—that is, a helper of the devil.

So then, we act in accordance with these writings and bring healing to all who come out of heresy by receiving them with anathema. But you not only disagree—you also hinder us. And all who hinder are helpers of the devil.

Let us also read from Theodore the Studite, part 1, p. 229:

“And whoever, at the proper time and by necessity, does not anathematize every heretic—let him be a partaker with them.”

You see how strictly the holy father commands to anathematize heretics. And whoever does not anathematize becomes a co-participant with the heretics.

Let us also read from Nikon of the Black Mountain, Taktikon, discourse 19, leaf 108:

“But as I said before: the great love of my Lady the God-bearer brought me to forget all these things. This, then, is the gift I bring to her—but I confess my own sins, and I anathematize all heresies, for I greatly love my God-bearer. Nestorius, who blasphemed against her and was accursed by thousands—I anathematize him by multitudes. And Arius likewise I anathematize by thousands.”

According to this teaching of the holy father, it is a gift to pronounce anathema upon heretics. And just as he himself anathematized, so also ought all to anathematize. And we act in full accord with this teaching.

For confirmation, I have brought forward many new testimonies.

ANTIPIN: All your cited testimonies do not justify your willful rite of reception, and the extent of your error becomes all the more evident upon examining your proofs in detail.

First: You cited from Iosif Volotsky, p. 46, where it says, “Those who do not know the Scriptures are afraid to anathematize heretics, but those who know the Scriptures ought to condemn and anathematize.” After reading this, you placed me among those who “do not know” the Scriptures, and yourselves among those who do—because you anathematize. But was this assertion of yours truthful? No, it was not.

For the holy father here is speaking of those who know the Scriptures—not of laypeople, but of those in authority. And you simply failed to read the full passage, and thus fell into error. So that you may better understand your mistake, I will read it again:

“But those who have read the divine Scriptures have understood that not only ought heretics to be condemned and anathematized, but even delivered over to cruel punishment.” (Enlightener, p. 46)

You see, it says altogether: “anathematized and delivered to cruel punishment.” To whom do these words refer—simple people, or those in authority? It is clear to any reasonable person that simple folk cannot punish, only those in authority can. Therefore, this passage refers solely to those in authority—and in this your misunderstanding is clearly exposed.

You suppose that you understand Scripture and do everything according to Scripture—but in reality, it all turns out contrary: your entire reasoning is one great error and contrary to the Scriptures.

Then you also read, again from the Enlightener, pp. 475 and 498, concerning how only heretics said that anathematizing was not permitted to the laity, but only to authorities, while according to the teaching of St. Iosif, everyone may anathematize. After reading this, you equated my understanding directly with that of the heretics—as though I were preaching the same doctrine as they: that only priests may pronounce anathema.

But such a notion of yours is nothing other than a false slander against me. For I have never held such a view. My understanding has always been this: “Laypeople may also anathematize—but not alone, only together with the clergy,” just as it is stated in Iosif’s writing on p. 502.

As for your reference to p. 498, where the holy fathers—Anthony and others—condemned heretics: what kind of condemnation was this? They merely rebuked the heretics and gave instruction not to have communion with them. I shall now read the passage:

“They spoke of the heretics, saying that their words were more poisonous than the venom of serpents, always instructing their disciples that they should have no communion with them.”

You see here that it is only a rebuke, and it has nothing to do with your rite of reception. It does not support your position in the least.

Then you read again from p. 502, and stated directly that it is permitted for all simple laypeople to anathematize heretics. But you read only the very end of that page, and skipped over what came before—and thus arrived at such a false teaching, that supposedly simple laypeople alone may anathematize. But there is absolutely no such instruction in that passage. Now listen—I shall read the full context, and for clarity’s sake I’ll begin already from the end of p. 501:

“But also at all the Ecumenical and Local Councils, monks who came… as well as princes and commanders, and simple men, husbands and wives, and every Orthodox Christian—together with bishops and with priests—condemned heretics… Behold, this is manifest and known truly to all mankind, that both bishops, priests, monks, and simple people, and all who are of Christian understanding, ought to condemn and anathematize heretics.”

You see what the proper understanding must be, according to the teaching of St. Iosif Volotsky: namely, that all—even simple men and women—may anathematize, but only together with the bishops, as was always done at the councils, and not by simple folk alone. Here there is not even a mention of laypeople acting alone. Nor is there anything said about the rite of reception—and according to this teaching, you have no justification for performing a willful rite of reception.

Then you quoted Theodore the Studite, part 2, pp. 413–415, claiming that it supposedly commands: “To heal [heresy] through repentance with anathema,” and that whoever hinders this is a helper of the devil. You quoted this with great enthusiasm, as though your anathematizing is precisely in accordance with this writing and pleasing to God—and you even went so far as to number me among the devil’s helpers.

But such a claim of yours is nothing other than a deceitful piece of sophistry, which I shall now expose using the very same writing. I read from p. 413:

“But since he saw that heresy was prevailing, he entrusted the healing of it to all who were willing… and this is a work greatly pleasing to God, who desires all men to be saved, and all the more those who turn to the healing of repentance.”

And further on p. 415:

“No one condemns such zeal… and whoever hinders it is a certain destroyer and common enemy of mankind, so that he may rightly be considered a co-worker with the man-killer from the beginning.”