Preface

A profoundly sorrowful event transpired within the Church of Christ from 1653 to 1667. During this period, a great schism occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church, which split into two opposing and hostile factions. Until this time, almost the entire Russian nation upheld the same Orthodox faith, the same church traditions, the same rites, statutes, books, and Christian customs, thereby dwelling in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ.

However, at the mentioned time, a small but influential faction of Russian people, esteemed in rank and outward authority, came to believe that our Russian Orthodox Church was not entirely Orthodox, that it required correction in many aspects, and that salvation could not be attained within it otherwise. The leader and head of this faction was Nikon of Mordovia, then the Patriarch of Moscow.

The other part—or rather, almost the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church—considered itself fully Orthodox and its faith entirely correct, recognizing as unnecessary any alterations or so-called corrections, which distorted these sacred matters of faith and morality and led to destruction.

But Nikon, undeterred, altered many sacred customs and books, introducing his various innovations under the guise of corrections. Some Christians accepted his supposed corrections and new rituals, thus gaining the name “New Ritualists,” though they proudly call themselves Orthodox. The majority, however, rejected Nikon’s innovations, continuing to hold to the old faith, customs, and church rites as before, and are therefore called “Old Ritualists” or “Old Believers.” Thus arose the division of the Russian Orthodox Church into Old Ritualists and New Ritualists.

It is not appropriate here to expound greatly on this sorrowful division, as a preface is usually intended merely to acquaint the reader briefly with the subjects or circumstances discussed in the work itself. Since this work addresses the question of the absence of bishops for a time in the Old Believer Church, it is necessary, however briefly, to acquaint the reader with this occurrence and its causes.

This situation arose because the bishops under Nikon adopted his innovations and errors in place of the ancient holy church traditions, such as the three-finger sign of the cross and the nominal finger arrangement, replacing the ancient two-finger sign; the triple “Alleluia” instead of the double; the name Jesus as “Иисус” (Iisus) instead of “Исус” (Isus); and generally, the so-called “newly corrected books” in place of those previously used in the Russian Orthodox Church, along with many others. Declaring these innovations as unalterable, unquestionable, and binding dogmas of faith at the councils of 1656-67, Nikon, along with his associates, adherents, and followers, established them with harmful and reckless curses for eternal affirmation and perpetual remembrance.

Regrettably, all the then-serving bishops sided with these anathematizers; incidentally, there were very few bishops at that time, so much so that at the great council of 1666-7, there were only twenty-nine bishops in total. However, prior to this, one bishop, namely Pavel of Kolomna, refused to accept Nikon’s innovations. For this, Nikon beat him nearly to death and sent him into exile, where he died as a martyr. Following the aforementioned council, when the Russian Church was irrevocably divided into Old and New Ritualists, no bishop remained in the Old Believer Church who was faithful to it. Yet, as historical records attest, the Old Believers were initially not lacking in priests; at the very onset of the schism, there was a sufficient number of the white clergy (secular clergy) who deviated into schism (that is, into the Old Belief). At the outset of the church discord, the highest white clergy of the Moscow Kremlin stood at the head of Nikon’s opponents. In the cities, the highest white clergy also led the schism. Among the earliest leaders of the schism were protopopes (senior priests) and priests: Nikita in Suzdal, Avvakum in Yuryevets, Lazar in Romanov, Daniil in Kostroma, Loggin in Murom, Nikifor in Simbirsk, Andrei in Kolomna, Serapion in Smolensk, Varlaam in Pskov, and others (Historical Sketches of the Popovtsy by Melnikov, pp. 5, 13, 29). Many priests who refused to accept Nikon’s dogmas were exiled, imprisoned, and chained, while others were burned alive, such as the protopopes Avvakum, Lazar, and many others.

However, a considerable number of priests, along with laypeople, escaped persecution by fleeing abroad, primarily to Poland, Turkey, Austria, and Romania, where they established settlements and monasteries and performed sacraments, services, and other religious duties for Christians. These priests were known as “of the old ordination,” as they had been ordained by bishops who adhered to the old faith. While these priests were alive, nearly all Old Believers were in perfect unity among themselves: they all received the sacraments and services from them. Thus, after the bishops had deviated into error, all Old Believers were initially what we now call “Popovtsy” (those with priests). Later, as the priests of the old ordination began to die out over time, with no one to ordain new ones, the Old Believer Church, guided by the rules and practice of the ancient Church, began to accept priests who renounced Nikonian errors, which were considered heresies of the second rank, under the anointing of holy chrism, as required by the church’s holy canons (Kormchaia, ch. 5, p. 35).

Yet, some Old Believers, partly due to excessive strictness toward heretics and partly in expectation of the imminent end of the world, being misled by false speculation on the coming and reign of the final Antichrist, did not follow the holy church’s rules on receiving clergy from heresy in their rank. They asserted that priests were supposedly unnecessary in the Church. Separating themselves from the Old Believer Church, these people formed a distinct community, known as “Bespopovtsy” (those without priests). Subsequently dividing further among themselves, they devised and adhered to the most crude and absurd errors, such as the beliefs that all heretics and schismatics must be rebaptized, that Antichrist already reigns in the person of the ruling Church’s representatives, that the sacraments are unnecessary, that each person may baptize himself, that lawful marriage is a sin, and more. They walked down these false and destructive paths, disregarding the Word of God.

Meanwhile, the Old Believer Church continued along the direct royal path, neither veering to the right nor the left. Adhering to all the holy ecumenical rules and the practices of the ancient Church, it accepted priests who joined from heresy of the second rank in their orders. In this way, it not only upheld the Orthodox faith but also remained steadfast in its hierarchy and sacraments.

Geographically, it occupied the following areas: on the Kerzhenets, in the provinces of Ryazan and Moscow, on the Irgiz, in Siberia, on the Don, in the Starodub settlements, in Poland, on the Vetka, in Turkey, and elsewhere. In many places, the Old Believers openly maintained churches, priests, and monasteries, especially where they enjoyed some freedom, such as in Starodub, the Caucasus, and particularly in Poland and Turkey.

Having an ample number of Orthodox priests, the Old Believers always desired and strove to have Orthodox bishops as well. Initially, after the council of 1667, many of them believed that somewhere there must be bishops who shared their faith. But when they realized there were none, they began to take all lawful measures to acquire Orthodox bishops based on the teachings of the holy fathers.

As early as 1715, the Old Believers decided at one of their assemblies to acquire a bishop based on the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council (Historical Sketches of the Popovtsy by Melnikov), and from that time on, their efforts toward this goal were unceasing until they achieved complete success in 1846, when Metropolitan Ambrose joined them.

However, even before this time, the Old Believers occasionally managed to fulfill their desire for bishops. Thus, in 1734, they received Bishop Epiphanius at Vetka; but for this, they paid a heavy price. The following year, at the insistence of the synod, the Russian government dispatched a large military force to Vetka. The force’s commander, Colonel Sytin, arrived there, arrested Bishop Epiphanius, and sent him to the fortress of Kiev for imprisonment. Sytin devastated Vetka and its surrounding settlements, dispersing the inhabitants and sending them to various locations. This is known in history as the “first Vetka expulsion.”

Yet the Old Believers did not cease their efforts to have a bishop even after this. The fervency of their desire is evident from the fact that some of them, in the 1750s, accepted even an impostor as a genuine bishop, albeit unknowingly. This was someone named Amphilogen, a hieromonk or hierodeacon from the New Ritualist Church. When it became known that he was an impostor, the Old Believers drove him away. Then, in 1753, they received Bishop Anthimus, consecrated to this rank by Metropolitan Daniel. Following him came Bishop Theodosius, consecrated by Bishop Gideon of Crimea; and according to some reports, there was also Bishop Raphael, consecrated by Patriarch Daniel, but he died on his journey, never reaching Russian lands.

For more details on these bishops, one may read Mr. Melnikov’s Historical Sketches of the Popovtsy and Mr. Subbotin’s History of the Belokrinitsa Hierarchy, from which we draw our information about them, although these histories cannot be called impartial.

As mentioned earlier, the Old Believer Church always had a sufficient number of priests, for, upon the division of the Russian Church, almost all priests belonging to the dominant Church sympathized with the Old Believers. Even a hundred years after the division, when the clergy began to cool in their faith under the influence of various seminaries and academies, the Old Believers alone from the Irgiz had up to two hundred priests in various locations. In 1827, at the Rogozhskoye Cemetery alone, there were nine permitted priests and three deacons (Schism by Andreev, p. 212).

However, from this year forward, Old Believers were strictly forbidden to receive priests joining them. If the government discovered any such priests, they were immediately sent to a fortress without any trial. In short, it was decided to eliminate the priesthood among the Old Believers. In response, following the example of previous years and based on the 69th and 70th canons of the Council of Carthage, they resolved to bring the lost bishops back to Orthodoxy. And—what a wondrous turn of events!—just when their enemies seemed to be celebrating a complete victory, when only three or four elderly priests remained among the Old Believers, a metropolitan named Ambrose joined them. This occurred in 1846 at the Belokrinitsa Monastery in Austria. Upon joining, Metropolitan Ambrose consecrated Bishops Kyrill and Arkadiy, along with many priests and deacons. Since that time, the Church of Christ has again had Orthodox bishops and continues to have them to this day, just as it did before they departed under Nikon’s influence. The appearance and establishment of the Old Believer hierarchy was such a powerful and shocking blow to the New Ritualist Church that it has still not recovered. At its urging, the Austrian Emperor closed the Belokrinitsa Monastery, scattered its inhabitants, and exiled Metropolitan Ambrose, who, after sixteen years of suffering, passed away in the Lord. As if in punishment for this injustice, a revolution soon erupted in Austria—a terrifying revolt of a kind rarely seen before—and the Austrian Emperor was stripped of his former power.

In Russia, the New Ritualists continued to persecute and plunder the Old Believers, but with particular fury after the establishment of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy. Nearly all Old Believer monasteries, churches, and prayer houses, along with all their property, were confiscated to the benefit of their church, which thus acquired several tens of millions of rubles and became enriched. But soon these millions had to be paid to the lowest and most corrupt individuals among the Old Believers who had defected to it. These people are called by a name that sounds strange to Russian and Orthodox ears—missionaries. Their duty is to revile the Old Believer Church and hierarchy and thereby deter people from joining it, which they sometimes manage to do, though rarely.

Finding absolutely no doctrinal errors in the Old Believer Church of Christ, these missionaries mostly fault it for the fact that, from 1666 to 1846—one hundred and eighty years—it had no bishop. However, this situation is by no means a fault nor an accusation against it, because it was not the case that the Church was without bishops solely because they had deviated into error and remained in it. Yet the missionaries sometimes lead simple, uneducated people astray with this claim, people who cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, Orthodoxy from heresy. For those who are zealous in faith, however, they only inspire a greater desire to study holy church teachings, to clarify the truth, and to defend the Church of Christ.

This motivated us to write this work on the question of the absence of bishops in the Old Believer Church of Christ for a time, due to their (the New Ritualists) remaining in error.

The present work, presented in dialogue form for clarity, is nothing more than a compilation of numerous conversations the author held with various people, primarily with missionaries.

On the Temporary Period When the Church of Christ Was Without a Bishop

A Dialogue between an Old Ritualist, a Priestless Old Believer, and a New Ritualist

In one place, three people gathered:

• Old Ritualist – A follower of the old rites, who accepts the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky Metropolia.
• Priestless Old Believer – Also an adherent of the old rites, but without a priesthood.
• New Ritualist: – A member of the dominant church in Russia, which has followed the new rites since the time of Nikon.

They engaged in the following conversation.

On the Widowhood of the Church

New Ritualist: I am amazed at you schismatics. Many of you are reasonable people. Do they not understand the falsehood and illegitimacy of their community’s position? I refer to the well-known fact that in this community, there was no bishop from the time of Patriarch Nikon, or the Council of 1666, until Metropolitan Ambrose joined in 1846, a period of exactly one hundred and eighty years. Does this not trouble you at all, nor make you doubt the righteousness of a community that went one hundred and eighty years without a bishop?

Old Ritualist: On the contrary, it is precisely this fact—that the Old Believer Church of Christ was without a bishop for so many years—that further convinces me of the righteousness and strength of this Church.

New Ritualist: How so?

Old Ritualist: In this way: that despite not having a bishop for many years, this Church did not adopt any heresies or false teachings, nor did it alter the Orthodox faith and church traditions in any way, preserving them as the apple of its eye. This is truly worthy of great wonder, reverence, and praise: to preserve the Orthodox faith without alteration, even without bishops, when we see that all other churches, though possessing many bishops, have accepted various errors and ceased to be the Orthodox Church. A Church is called Orthodox not because it has bishops, but because it holds to the Orthodox faith. The Old Believer Church holds this faith without the slightest mixture of error, as even your own synod testifies (Synodal Admonition, p. 35).\footnote{The references used are given as found in the printed Russian edition. The title names have been translated into English, however the books themselves in almost all cases have not.*

New Ritualist: Let that be so. Let us agree that your Church holds no heresies and is entirely Orthodox in faith, but it still cannot be the true Church of Christ. You yourself admit that you were without a bishop for one hundred and eighty years, and without a bishop, the Church is called a widow. This is well-supported by the writings of Ozerov (Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 4).

But if your Church was a widow, then how could it have offspring? If it did bear children, then surely they were illegitimate. God could never allow such shame and disgrace to His Church. Only your schismatic church could sink to such a disgraceful state that everyone reproaches and scorns it for its widowhood, as if it were abandoned by God. Our Orthodox Church, however, has never been a widow and never will be. She will not reach such disgrace as to be widowed and lament her condition; she sits as a queen in the world.

Old Ritualist: Speaking impartially, I must acknowledge that much of what you say about the widowhood of the Church is true. It is true that without a bishop, the Church is called a widow; it is true that your Church reigns, outwardly appearing not to be widowed; it is also true that the Old Believer Church was widowed, having no bishop. Now we must consider which of them is the true Church of Christ, and which is false, heretical: the widowed or the non-widowed? Let us listen to what Holy Scripture says about this. Concerning the widowed Church, we read in the book of the prophet Isaiah:

But Zion said, “The Lord hath forsaken me, and God hath forgotten me.” Shall a woman forget her child, that she should not have compassion on the offspring of her womb? Yea, though a woman may forget, yet will I not forget thee, saith the Lord. Behold, I have graven thy walls upon my hands, and thou art ever before me; and soon shalt thou be rebuilt by those who have torn thee down, and those who laid thee waste shall go out from thee. Lift up thine eyes round about and see all these gathered together and come unto thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt clothe thyself with them as with an ornament, and bind them upon thee as a bride doth her jewels. For thy desolate places and thy destroyed places and thy fallen places shall now be too narrow for those who dwell within, and they that swallowed thee up shall depart far from thee. Thy children, whom thou hadst lost, shall say in thine ears, “This place is too strait for me; give place to me that I may dwell.” And thou shalt say in thine heart, “Who hath begotten me these, seeing I was childless and a widow? And who hath reared these? Behold, I was left alone; whence then have these come to me?” (Isaiah 49:14-21).

Thus, not only you but even the Church herself wonders and is puzzled as to how she has offspring when she was a widow.

For the Lord hath said: “Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitation; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes. Spread out to the right hand and to the left, and thy seed shall inherit the nations and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not, for thou shalt not be put to shame, nor be confounded, for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth and shalt remember the reproach of thy widowhood no more. For thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of Hosts is His name, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; He shall be called the God of all the earth. Not as a forsaken and brokenhearted woman hath the Lord called thee, nor as a woman despised from her youth, saith thy God. For a little while I forsook thee, but with great mercy will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee,” saith the Lord thy Redeemer. (Isaiah 54:1-8).

This is what the true Church of Christ is like. Contrary to your assertions, she is found to be, according to Holy Scripture itself, a Church that is widowed, reproached, shamed, and even seemingly abandoned by God. And all these attributes you have yourselves applied to the Old Believer Church; therefore, she is the Church of Christ.

Now let us look at the other church—the one that is not disgraced, that reigns, that is not widowed—in other words, your New Ritualist Church. About this church, the book of Revelation, chapter 18, says the following:

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.” And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, `I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.’ Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her” (Rev. 18:1-8).

Thus, Scripture presents two churches: one that appears abandoned by God, reproached, and disgraced precisely because it is widowed, and which, by human reasoning, could hardly be considered worse. But according to Scripture, this is the Church of Christ. The other church, reigning and ruling, knows no tears or sorrow precisely because she is not a widow; she seems to be the best church. But according to the Word of God, she is “the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird,” the adulterous Babylon, which is to say, the heretical church. The marks of the first church you have applied to the Old Believer Church of Christ, while the characteristics of the second church you apply to your New Ritualist Church.

This is why the fact that the Old Believer Church went one hundred and eighty years without a bishop, that it was widowed for such a long time, does not disturb me but rather strengthens and confirms my conviction that this Church is indeed the true Church of Christ.

Priestless Believer: I am very glad that you have vindicated us. You have proven that a church which is widowed, reproached, and seemingly abandoned by God is the Church of Christ. Such is our Priestless Church. The non-widowed church, on the other hand, is the heretical Nikonian Church. All this is true, and it fully justifies us.

Old Ritualist: You rejoice prematurely. The passages I cited from the prophet Isaiah concerning the widowed church do not justify you but rather directly condemn you, Priestless Believers. You teach that if God has abandoned His Church, it is forever; but the prophet Isaiah says it is not forever, only for a little while. It is written: “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer” (Isaiah 54:7-8). And regarding the widowhood of the Church, it is said that it will pass: “Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more” (Isaiah 54:4). Why? Because, it continues, “thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.” This means it will pass, it will end, and the Church will no longer even remember it. But you, Priestless Believers, preach that the Church will be widowed forever; the Runaway Priests (Beglopopovtsy) say and believe the same. Thus, the passages from the prophet Isaiah about the widowed church condemn both you and the Runaway Priests, while they justify our Old Believer Church, which indeed was widowed only for a time.

New Ritualist: All of this would be valid if the words of the prophet Isaiah you cited referred to the New Testament Church and not the Old Testament Church. But our Church’s theologians and exegetes interpret these prophecies as pertaining to the Old Testament Church, specifically to the time of the Babylonian captivity. In The Explanation of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah by Bishop Peter, it is stated: “By widowhood, the prophet refers to the time of the Babylonian captivity, when it seemed as though God had entirely abandoned His people without any care or help. Thus the prophet Jeremiah says, `Israel and Judah have not been forsaken by their God’ (Jeremiah 51:5). This refers to their deliverance from the Babylonian captivity” (Explanation of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Bishop Peter, p. 210, 1887 edition).

Old Ritualist: You seem to forget that the Old Testament Church was a prototype of the New Testament Church, and therefore everything spoken by the prophets about the former also applies to the latter. St. Ephraim the Syrian says, “The present state is a type of captivity (Babylonian). If all things in the Old Testament had both typology and reality, then the battles and their consequences also had typology and reality” (Works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Part 5, p. 630). He says in another place, “The mystical meaning almost always follows the historical. What the prophets say about events that happened or would happen to the people of God (the Jews), must be related to the future state of the Church of Christ, and in general serves to depict God’s arrangements for all the righteous and the wicked” (Works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Part 1, p. 68-69; Part 5, p. 513).

Thus, even if the passage we cited from the book of the prophet Isaiah truly referred to the Old Testament Church, according to the teaching of the holy fathers, it must, without doubt, also be applied to the New Testament Church.

On the Universal and Local Church

New Ritualist: Whatever you tell me, I will never agree that the universal Church of Christ can be in widowhood. Local or regional churches may be in widowhood—that is indisputable—but the entire universal Church can never be widowed.

Old Ritualist: And where is it written that the whole universal Church cannot be in widowhood? Show me.

New Ritualist: I cannot show you.

Old Ritualist: Why not?

New Ritualist: Because such an expression is not found anywhere—not in Holy Scripture, nor in the teachings of the holy fathers.

Old Ritualist: Precisely. This means that your teaching—that the universal Church cannot be in widowhood—is not based on Holy Scripture or the teachings of the holy fathers, but rather on human reasoning and your own inventions.

And not only this, but even what you say about the universal Church is not from Scripture. Tell me: in which Gospel did you find the very term “universal Church”?

New Ritualist: The Gospel does not contain this term.

Old Ritualist: And in the Epistles?

New Ritualist: It is not in the Epistles either.

Old Ritualist: And in the Creed, which Church do you confess: the universal Church, or something else?

New Ritualist: In the Creed, we read: “in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” meaning that we believe in it.

Old Ritualist: You see, again, there is no mention of a “universal Church.” Why, then, do you speak about a universal Church when it is not mentioned in the Gospel, nor the Epistles, nor in the Creed?

New Ritualist: But our missionaries always speak about the universal Church.

Old Ritualist: One should follow the teachings of the Gospel, not the missionaries. And in the Gospel, it speaks not of a universal Church, but of the Church of Christ (Matthew, reading 63).¹ In the Creed, too, it speaks of “one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” not a universal Church. The missionaries speak of a universal Church instead of the Church of Christ because they do not want to know or proclaim the Church of Christ, but rather preach about an “imagined” Church—a Church they have invented. In the book On Faith, it is written: “It is proper for every person to know the true Church, not an imagined Church, but the one pure and undefiled Bride (Christ) from the heavenly Bridegroom” (ch. 23, p. 216v). But you, New Ritualists, do not want to know the Church of Christ; instead, you have invented for yourselves a kind of universal Church, about which the Gospel does not even mention. This is only to obscure the truth and to argue against the Old Ritualists. If we speak of the Church of Christ, you New Ritualists will be defeated and shamed in your reasoning.

New Ritualist: How so?

Old Ritualist: Like this. Answer me this question: is a local church, such as the Church of Carthage, a Church of Christ or not?

New Ritualist: Of course, it is a Church of Christ.

Old Ritualist: And when it had no bishop, when it was in widowhood, whether due to bishops deviating into heresy or due to persecution, was it still a Church of Christ during that time, or not?

New Ritualist: Of course, it was a Church of Christ even when it was widowed without a bishop. But that is a local church, not the universal Church.

Old Ritualist: And is a local church not a Church of Christ?

New Ritualist: I already said that it is indeed a Church of Christ.

Old Ritualist: So then, a Church of Christ can exist without a bishop—in widowhood?

New Ritualist: A Church of Christ can be in widowhood without a bishop, but the universal Church cannot.

Old Ritualist: And if the universal Church were left without a bishop, in widowhood, what then?

New Ritualist: That could never happen, because if it did, the Church would cease to be a Church of Christ and would be overcome by the gates of hell.

Old Ritualist: Your reasoning is strange. For a local or regional church, being without a bishop is not disgraceful or harmful, yet for the universal Church, it would mean dishonor and ruin. Could the universal Church really be weaker than a local church? If being without a bishop is an evil, it is equally evil for both the universal and the local Church. And if it is not an evil for a local church, then it is not an evil for the universal Church either. If a local church, while remaining in widowhood without a bishop, does not cease to be truly a Church of Christ, then likewise the universal Church. In fact, even more so—if a part of the Church is not harmed or lost while it remains without a bishop, then all the more so for the whole universal Church. But tell me: do you still assert that a local church can be without a bishop—in widowhood?

New Ritualist: Yes. I have always asserted, and I confirm now, that a local Church can exist without a bishop and will not cease to be a Church of Christ if it holds to the Orthodox faith, but the whole universal Church cannot.

Old Ritualist: But the universal Church that you proclaim is itself also just a local church.

New Ritualist: How can that be?

Old Ritualist: Like this. Explain to me what exactly you mean by the terms “local church” and “universal church.”

New Ritualist: My understanding is this: the universal Church is all the believers, or the entire community of people living on earth right now. And a local church is a part of this community, located in a specific place, which is why it is also called a regional church.

Old Ritualist: What you said is correct, but incomplete. The community of people currently living on earth does not constitute the whole Church of Christ, but only a part of it. The entire Church of Christ consists of all the heavenly hosts, all the saints who lived from Adam to this present time; it includes all people currently living on earth who hold to the true Orthodox faith, and every Christian who fulfills all the commandments of the Gospel. Holy Scripture and the teachings of the holy fathers testify that the heavenly hosts also belong to the Church of God. Thus, the holy Apostle Paul writes in his Epistle to the Ephesians that God, “in the dispensation of the fullness of times, might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in him” (Eph. 1:10, reading 217), and “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:20-21, reading 218). Elsewhere he writes: “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. 1:18-20, reading 251). And again: “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:22-24, reading 332).

Blessed Augustine teaches: “The natural order of confession requires that the Church, built by the most holy and consubstantial Trinity, be as a dwelling for the inhabitant, a temple for God, and a city for its ruler. This Church is composed not only of the part that sojourns on earth from the rising of the sun to its setting, praising the name of the Lord and singing a new song after its ancient captivity, but also of the heavenly part, which is forever united to its Creator, never having experienced a single fall or evil. This Church abides among the holy angels, unblemished, assisting her sojourning part as is proper. This Church of angels and humans will share in eternity, being entirely established for the worship of the one God, united in love, always remaining one in union” (his book Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, ch. 54).

In the book On Faith, it is also written: “The tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon were images of the two churches of Christ—that is, the one on earth and the one in heaven. The church on earth was represented by the tabernacle of Moses; the heavenly church was represented by the temple of Solomon, built on the mountain. There are two churches in number, but one in faith. Of this one on earth, the Lord said: ‘upon this rock I will build my church’; and of the heavenly one, the Apostle said: ‘ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels’” (ch. 2, p. 17v).

From these irrefutable testimonies, it is clearly revealed that the Church of Christ consists not only of people who believe in God and fulfill His holy and saving commandments, but also of the holy and bodiless powers of God, so that the Church is composed, as it were, of two parts: heavenly and earthly, which, though two in number, are one in faith in God, united under one head, our Lord Jesus Christ (ch. 7, p. 57), who is the head of all things, “both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Col. 1:16, reading 250). Thus, it is evident that all true believers, not only those currently living on earth but also all who have lived from Adam to the coming of Christ, constitute only a part of the entire holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ; this is a local church in relation to the whole Church, which consists of angels and all the holy bodiless heavenly powers.

That all the saints belong to the earthly part of the Church of Christ, regardless of the time in which they lived—from Adam until the dreadful judgment of Christ—is attested by many testimonies in the teachings of the holy fathers, of which I will present a few here. Saint John Chrysostom, in his commentary on the words of the Apostle Paul, “One body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” says the following: “What is this one body? It is all the faithful throughout the world, those who are, those who have been, and those who will be; even those who were pleasing to God before the coming of Christ are one body. How? Because they too knew Christ. How is this revealed? Your father Abraham, he says, rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56; Homilies on Ephesians, p. 1676-7, 10th homily). Likewise, in the Great Catechism, it is stated: “And again, all the faithful in the entire world, those who are now, who have been, and who will be, they are one holy, catholic Church, the house of God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15, reading 284). Later, it adds: “Finally, all the saints in paradise and in heaven are truly and rightly called the Church of God” (Great Catechism, ch. 25, p. 120v). The book On Faith also teaches this: “You are the body of Christ, and members in particular, for the Church is the body of Christ, which consists of the assembly of the faithful, of people of every age and rank, of the saints of God, of the righteous martyrs and venerable ones, and of all the pious throughout the ages, and it is called the Church” (ch. 2, p. 22).

Thus, the earthly Church, which represents only a part of the entire Church of God, which includes the angels, itself consists of several parts: of the saints who dwell in paradise and of the believers currently living on earth. Therefore, these believers, or the so-called “universal church,” are only a part of the whole catholic Church of God. And being only a part of the entire Church of God, the “universal church,” or the community of believers currently living on earth, is a local church. And you yourself insistently assert that a local church can exist without a bishop and still remain an Orthodox Church of Christ. Thus, our Old Believer Church of Christ, as a local church in relation to the whole Church of God, though it did not have an Orthodox bishop for one hundred and eighty years, was truly an Orthodox Church of Christ, even if in widowhood.

To fully clarify the truth about the universal Church, I consider it necessary to add the following. If, by your understanding, the universal Church is a society spread throughout the world, united by one faith, then I ask: is the Roman Catholic Church a universal (worldwide) Church? It is more widespread than any other throughout the world.

New Ritualist: It is universal.

Old Ritualist: And yours?

New Ritualist: Without a doubt, it is universal.

Old Ritualist: And the Armenian Church?

New Ritualist: The Armenian Church is also a universal Church.

Old Ritualist: Oh, how many “universal” churches you have, and they’re too numerous to count! Yet, according to the Creed, we must confess only one Church, not many. It is clearly stated: “in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” If, as you admit, there are many universal churches, then tell me: which one of them is the true Church of Christ?

New Ritualist: The one that has its own bishops.

Old Ritualist: And does the Roman Catholic Church have its own bishops?

New Ritualist: Yes, it does.

Old Ritualist: So, then, it is the true Orthodox Church, is that right?

New Ritualist: No; it is heretical because it has heresies.

Old Ritualist: You see, you have come to the conclusion yourself that the true Church is recognized not by its bishops, but by the faith it holds: whether it is Orthodox or heretical. That is why the holy apostles, holy councils, and the holy fathers and teachers of the Church did not consider bishops as the primary mark of the Church’s Orthodoxy, since even heretics have bishops. Nor did they define it with the term “universal Church,” because heretical churches, as you yourself confirm, could also bear this title. Instead, they set Orthodox faith as the primary mark of the Church’s Orthodoxy. If a church holds the Orthodox faith, then it is the Orthodox Church, even if it is in widowhood without a bishop, and regardless of whether it is called universal or local.

The holy apostles and holy fathers, when defining the Orthodoxy of the Church, did not call it universal, local, or regional; rather, they called it “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” or simply “the Church of Christ,” “the Church of God,” and the like. This is because the terms “universal,” “local,” and “regional” do not signify Orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a church, but merely indicate its geographical spread: whether it is confined to one locality or spread throughout the world—and nothing more. Just as names like “Russian Church,” “Bulgarian Church,” “Greek Church,” “Constantinople Church,” and “Moscow Church” merely designate the place where the church is located, without indicating either its Orthodoxy or heterodoxy. Thus, the term “universal Church” merely shows that it exists throughout the world—and nothing more. Yet all heretical churches exist throughout the world; therefore, they too can be called universal churches, as you yourself admitted. For this reason, we should use names for the Church that distinguish it from heretical churches rather than place it alongside them. Such names, as I have already mentioned, are “the Church of Christ,” “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” These names, given to the Church by the holy apostles, holy councils, and fathers, are fitting and fully applicable only to that Church which in all things preserves the Orthodox faith and the Church’s traditions unchanged, as stated in the Great Catechism:

Question: What is the catholic Church?

Answer: The catholic Church is that in which the doctrines handed down by all the holy seven ecumenical councils are kept; it is glorified with holy hymns and chants, and adorned with holy and divine icons; it was founded and established upon the relics of the holy martyrs; in it the holy and divine mysteries are performed; in it all the faithful receive the most pure body and precious blood of Christ our God, and thereby become partakers of the heavenly kingdom. This is what has been handed down to us by the holy apostles and by the holy and God-bearing fathers; for this reason, it is called the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This is the catholic Church, which believes in the whole Gospel and in all the teachings of the ecumenical councils, and not in part. This is the catholic Church, which does not believe in a faith devised by human reasoning, nor does it hold mysteries established by a single individual, but believes and trusts in that which the Lord God delivered, and which the entire world has accepted and approved in council (Great Catechism, ch. 25, p. 121v).

On Belief in the Church and Its Essence

New Ritualist: You keep talking about the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”—that is, the Church in which we must believe according to the Creed. But you, Old Ritualists, do not believe in this Church, even though you discuss it. The Church defined by the Creed should consist of a society of believers with a three-tiered hierarchy and seven sacraments. And you do not constitute such a Church, because you lacked a bishop for one hundred and eighty years. But we Orthodox have always constituted and continue to constitute the Church professed in the Creed, with its full composition, as we have always had bishops.

Old Ritualist: Do you believe in this Church that you claim to constitute?

New Ritualist: How could we not? In the Creed, we always read: “I believe in one God the Father, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” This is how we believe in the Church, just as we believe in God.

Old Ritualist: Is that so? You claim to constitute the Church and believe in it, even as you believe in God? Then you believe in yourselves as if you were God. What blasphemy your distorted concept and teaching about the Creedal Church leads you to! You become like idolaters, believing in a creature as though it were the Creator. Even worse—you become self-deifiers, believing in yourselves as if you were God. What could be worse or more sacrilegious than this? If it is disgraceful and sacrilegious to create an idol and believe in it as if it were God, then it is even more sacrilegious to believe this way about yourselves.

New Ritualist: But believing people are called the Church, as it says in the Catechism and in many other books; and we are obliged to believe in the Church. Therefore, we must believe in believing people.

Old Ritualist: If you reason this way, you could go even further. In Scripture, a person is called not only the Church, but even a god: “I said, Ye are gods” (Psalm 81). And, “showing mercy to His christ (anointed), to David” (Psalm 17). Following your reasoning, one could conclude that we must believe in people in place of God and Christ. This is precisely what sectarians, or “Khlysts,” do, misusing the term “God” without understanding the difference between God by nature and god by resemblance. Likewise, by misusing the term “Church,” you compel people to believe in humans as if they were God, thus promoting a form of sectarianism.

The term “Church” refers not only to the entire community of believers, but also to each member of this community, to every individual believer, and even to the building where believers gather for prayer, and to many other objects or “things,” as is also indicated in the Great Catechism (ch. 25, p. 120v). According to your logic, we should believe in every believing person and even in church buildings as if they were God, since they, too, are called “Church.”

To prevent such false interpretations and abuses, even your own metropolitan, Gregory, after listing the various meanings expressed by the word “Church,” gives this instruction:

It is very necessary to note this distinction of meanings for the word Church, because, if we do not differentiate these meanings and apply the passages of Scripture containing the word Church without proper discernment, as apostates from Orthodoxy often do, one will inevitably fall into various errors. For what is said in Scripture about the Church in one sense cannot be applied to the Church in another sense. For example, what can be said about the Church as the temple of God (the building) cannot be applied to the Church as the community of Orthodox believers. Therefore, St. Chrysostom, in his homilies on the phrase, “The queen stood,” having spoken of the Church as the community of believers, said, “Nothing is equal to the Church,” but he immediately warned his listeners not to understand his words as referring to the Church as a building, saying specifically: “Do not speak to me of walls. Walls age with time, but the Church never grows old” (The Pearl, p. 519).\footnote{Also called Margarit, a collection of homilies attributed to St. John Chrysostom.* He also said: “The Church is greatly beloved by God. Not this one enclosed by walls, but this one fortified by faith” (On Faith, p. 19v; The True Ancient and True Orthodox Church, Gregory, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Part 1, ch. 1, p. 18).

Metropolitan Gregory directed this clarification regarding the Church, of course, against the Old Ritualists, but it strikes entirely at you, the proponents of the New Ritualist Church, since you indeed mislead the simple-hearted with the term “Church,” causing them to believe in people as if they were God.

New Ritualist: But how, then, should we correctly understand belief in the Creedal Church, and how should one believe in it?

Old Ritualist: Let us read about this in the books. Here is what is written in the Great Catechism:

Question: How should we understand what we say: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”? Do we believe in people, or in something else?
\ Answer: Not in people, but in their divine proclamations and dogmas, that is, we rely on the Church’s ordinances and conciliar and apostolic traditions (Catechism, ch. 4, p. 17v).

And again: “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, meaning that we trust in the teachings and dogmas of the holy apostles and the seven holy ecumenical councils, and not in people” (Great Catechism, ch. 25, p. 119).

This teaching about belief in the Church is in accordance with the teaching of Christ Himself, who began His preaching with the words: “Repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15, reading 2). By the word “Gospel,” we can understand not only the single book bearing this name but the entirety of the Christian proclamation—all the teachings and decrees of the holy apostles, holy councils, holy fathers, and teachers of the Church that are presented in accordance with the Gospel. Blessed Jerome teaches:

The entirety of many books, if they agree with each other and are written about the same subject, is commonly called by Scripture a single book, as, for example, the Gospel and the law of the Lord, perfect and converting the soul (Psalm 18:7), are spoken of in the singular, even though there are many Gospels and many commandments of the law. Likewise, the book mentioned in the speech of Isaiah refers to all divine Scripture (Isaiah 29:18). Both Ezekiel and John consume a single book (Ezekiel 3:1-3; Revelation 10:9-10), and the Savior, foretold by the voices of all the saints, said, “In the volume of the book it is written of Me” (Psalm 40:7). Corresponding to this meaning, it is commanded that there should not be many books. For whatever you might say, if it refers to Him “who was in the beginning with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), then it is all one book, and innumerable books are called one law and one Gospel (Works of Jerome, vol. 6, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ch. 12).

Therefore, to believe in the Church means not to believe in people but to believe in the Gospel, in the commandments of God, in the divine proclamations and dogmas, in conciliar and apostolic teachings and traditions; it means to hold all the evangelical and divine commandments and church traditions and to arrange one’s life according to them, thereby entering into the most lively communion with Christ and becoming a member of His body—the Church—and a partaker of His gifts.

The commandments of God and the evangelical teaching are not something empty, abstract, or non-existent; rather, they are “spirit and life” (John 6:63, reading 24), and so powerful and strong that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one tittle of the law shall fail” (Luke 16:17, reading 82). And again: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31, reading 62). These words of God and all the teachings of the Gospel, firmer than the earth and the heavens, are the Gospel’s teachings, as well as the apostolic and conciliar traditions and decrees in which we are commanded by the Creed to believe. The holy fathers and teachers of the Church often directly call these the Church. For instance, St. Maximus the Confessor says, “Christ the Lord called the right and salvific confession of faith to be the catholic Church; therefore, He called blessed the confession of Peter, who confessed well, and promised to build upon such a confession the Church of all” (Lives of the Saints, Jan. 21). St. John Chrysostom declares: “When I speak of the Church, I mean not merely a place but also a disposition; not just church walls but the Church’s laws. For the Church is not walls and a roof, but faith and life” (The Pearl, Homily 10, on the Queen, p. 519). And, “Evil shall never prevail over our pure and undefiled faith and on the true commands of Christ” (Gospel Commentary, Sunday 13, p. 244). Similarly, Nikon of the Black Mountain writes, “For the catholic churches are not walls but the right teachings and traditions of the divine rules of the holy councils and the holy apostles” (Taktikon, Homily 22).

This is the Church in which we profess to believe according to the Creed, the Church consisting of evangelical and divine commandments, apostolic and patristic dogmas, traditions, and proclamations, in which we profess to abide. From this, it is clear that those who truly believe in the Church are those who strictly and precisely hold and fulfill all evangelical and apostolic commandments and traditions and arrange their lives according to them. The Old Believer Church of Christ believes in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” meaning that it believes in the Gospel, in the divine commandments, in the dogmas and traditions of the holy apostles and holy fathers, and has always held and continues to hold them without change or compromise, striving constantly to fulfill them in all their precision, strictness, and fullness. But other heretical churches do not believe in the Church professed in the Creed, for they violate many evangelical commandments and apostolic dogmas and traditions, neither holding them nor following them. Instead, they follow their own inventions, their own destructive heresies, which they believe in as divinely revealed truths, or simply believe in themselves and in people who hold heresies.

Thus, from the presented arguments and testimonies, it is evident that the objects of faith in the Church professed in the Creed consist of the Holy Gospel, the divine commandments and dogmas, the apostolic proclamations and traditions. These, as an essential part of the Church, are often directly called the Church itself. Yet, it is known that the Church consists not only of faith but also of believers, so that faith and the faithful constitute parts of the Church. However, these parts of the Church should never be confused with each other, nor should the properties of one be attributed to the other. A person consists of both soul and body, but it would be a grave error to attribute the properties of the body to the soul, and vice versa. Likewise, concerning the Church: in it, faith is the soul, and the believers are the body. This comparison is well developed and explained by Metropolitan Macarius, who, as a theologian of your church, should hold special authority for you. In his Introduction to Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, he writes:

Faith and the Church exist inseparably. Faith, in the broadest sense, is the union between God and a rational, free creature; and the Church is the assembly of rational, free creatures united by this very bond among themselves. Therefore, particularly if we turn only to ourselves (humans), faith is the union of man with God, while the Church is the society of people who hold the same faith and are connected to each other through it. Thus:
(a) the same bond with God, considered in relation to individual moral beings as separate from one another, constitutes faith; but considered in relation to all of them as a connection among themselves, it forms the Church;
(b) the Church, or the society of moral beings holding the same faith, can be said to be the body, while the faith that binds all these beings into one whole is the soul of the Church, so that faith and the Church constitute one inseparable whole;
(c) faith cannot exist without the Church, because, being the property of not only one spiritual being but of all, it naturally unites them into one moral society; even more so, the Church cannot exist without faith, which it presupposes as essential to its existence (Introduction to Theology, Macarius, ch. 1, §16).

To this, it is necessary to add only that the Apostle Paul also compares the Church to the human body, saying: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12, reading 152). Among the members of the Church, bishops are undoubtedly included. But just as a person, if deprived of some bodily member, does not cease to be a person, does not die, nor lose their dignity—even sometimes boasting in their bodily wounds if received in a heroic battle for faith, king, and country—so if someone loses certain bodily members due to suffering for Christ, it is an even greater honor and glory. But if a person, with a completely whole and healthy body, has a corrupted and ruined soul, then they are not a worthy person but rather akin to irrational beasts, resembling them and deserving of complete contempt and aversion.

So it is with the Church: if it loses any of its members, for instance, a bishop, yet its soul—its faith, teachings, and patristic traditions—remains intact and unaltered, then such a Church is, without a doubt, the true Church of Christ, in which one can attain the Kingdom of Heaven and reach eternal blessedness. However, if a church retains all its members intact and seemingly healthy, but its spirit—its faith, teachings, dogmas, and traditions—is corrupted and distorted, then such a church is not the true Church of Christ but a heretical one, and within it, one cannot attain eternal blessedness.

The Symbolic Representation of the Church

To make it even clearer for you how the right and saving confession of faith represents the Church of Christ, and how believing people abide within it, let us present the simplest and most visual representation of the Church. I read in a book titled Lessons and Examples of Christian Faith, which collects excerpts from various books. Here is what is written in it:

“It is impossible to cross the sea without a ship,” says Saint John Chrysostom. “And this ship signifies the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The master of this spiritual ship is Almighty God the Father; the helmsman is His only-begotten Son; the favorable wind is the Holy Spirit; the subordinate rulers of the ship—the Church—are the apostles and their successors, the pastors and teachers of the Church; those sailing on this ship are all true-believing Christians; the hull and foundation of this ship are the right faith in the Holy Trinity; the sides of the ship, its bow, and helm represent the right dogmas of faith, the commandments of God, the Church’s traditions, apostolic rules, the ecumenical councils, and church statutes in general; the mast is the holy cross of Christ, which strengthens and establishes all within the Church; the sails are love; the anchor is hope. This spiritual ship of the Church transports all the true-believing and genuine Christians from various places and lands across the sea of life to the heavenly Jerusalem. Although it is tossed by many winds and waves, it never suffers shipwreck. However many enemies and persecutors have risen against the holy Church, it has never been overcome, for it is established by the word of the Lord: ‘Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’” (Matthew 16:18) (Lessons and Examples of Christian Faith, p. 421).

In the book by Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica, there is even an illustration of a ship with many passengers, directed by Christ Himself. Beneath the ship stand many people with various instruments in their hands, striving to harm the ship. Above the illustration is inscribed: “The ship symbolizes the Church, militant and persecuted by heretics; on the earth, kings and rulers of men have gathered, that is, heretics” (see the beginning of his book, following the preface and table of contents). Also, in the Greek Rudder, (Pedalion), we read the following:

To explain the title (Pedalion, which translates to ‘rudder’ or ‘helm’), an illustration is included in the book (the Greek Pedalion) of a ship with many passengers, directed by Christ Himself. This ship, say the publishers of the Pedalion, in the caption under the illustration, symbolizes the catholic Church of Christ: the hull of the ship represents the Orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity; the beams and planks represent the dogmas of faith and traditions; the mast is the cross; the sails are hope and love; the helmsman is Christ; the rowers and shipmen are the apostles, their successors, and all clerics; the passengers are all Orthodox Christians; the sea is present life; the gentle breezes (favorable winds) represent the gracious breath of the Spirit; the winds are temptations; the helm guiding it to the heavenly harbor is this book of divine rules (The Greek Pedalion, by I. Nikolsky, p. 5).

From these descriptions of the Church of Christ, it is clearly visible what role the commandments of God, apostolic teachings, dogmas, and holy traditions play within the Church, and what role believing people who hold and fulfill them play. The Orthodox faith and church traditions constitute the structure of the ship itself, while the believers are like the rulers and passengers on the ship. From this, it is clear that if the ship itself is strong, durable, and undamaged, then even if some passengers or even shipmen are missing, it can sail safely and will not be destroyed or sink. Similarly, in the Church: if the Orthodox faith and holy traditions are intact and unaltered, then even if some members are missing, the Church can safely proceed on its course in this world and fully reach its goal, bringing its children to eternal blessedness, being directed by its Almighty Helmsman—Christ.

If, however, the ship itself is damaged, with a leaky hull or broken sides, beams, and planks, then even if it is filled with many passengers, shipmen, rowers, and rulers, it will inevitably sink, and all who remain on it will go to the bottom. Likewise, with the Church: if the Orthodox faith is corrupted, church dogmas and traditions are distorted, and the teachings of the Gospel and the holy fathers are perverted, then, even if it is filled with countless passengers, shipmen, and rowers, it will inevitably perish, and all within it will go down to the depths of hell.

Now let us consider the Old Believer Church of Christ and see if it has any such damage. No, it reveals no such damage whatsoever. The description of the Church above states that the hull and foundation of the ship-Church are the Orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity, which the Old Believer Church has always preserved, unchanging and uncorrupted; hence, its hull and foundation are strong and undamaged. And what of its sides, or its bow and stern? These are also intact. It states: “the sides of the ship-Church, its bow, and helm, or beams and planks, represent the right dogmas of faith, the commandments of God, the traditions of the Church, apostolic rules, and the decrees of the ecumenical councils and church ordinances in general.” The Old Believer Church has always held these without the slightest alteration or distortion. Thus, in the Old Believer Church, both the hull and foundation and the sides of the ship, the bow, and the helm are perfectly whole and entirely undamaged.

What, then, was its only lack? Only that for a certain time, it lacked some subordinate rulers of the ship, or rowers and shipmen—specifically, bishops. However, it should be noted that not all rowers and shipmen were absent in the Old Believer Church, but only a part of them; there was still a portion, for it is said that the rowers and shipmen represent the apostles, their successors, and all clerics. And the clerics are precisely the priests, deacons, subdeacons, and so forth. These clerics have always existed in the Old Believer Church, even during the absence of bishops. But the most important point is that the ship itself was always intact and undamaged.

Even the Enemies of the Old Believer Church Testify to Its Orthodoxy

New Ritualist: Everyone praises themselves. You say that you Old Believers uphold the Orthodox faith, that the ship of your church is whole and undamaged. But everyone says the same about themselves. Our Orthodox Church regards you as schismatics and second-order heretics because you do not listen to it.

Old Ritualist: Indeed, if we were the only ones testifying on our behalf, our testimony might be subject to doubt. But in this matter—that the Old Believer Church has no heresies—our enemies themselves bear witness, not just us. They, despite all their malice and implacable hatred toward it, have not pointed out, and could not point out, any heresy within it. Moreover, even without any coercion or request on our part, they affirm and demonstrate that Old Believers neither had nor have the slightest heresy. For example, the Russian Church itself permitted and even blessed its children, the Edinoverie faithful, to use all the books, rituals, church traditions, and beliefs upheld by the Old Believer Church—the very things that distinguish it from the New Believers. Thus, the New Ritualist Church itself, by its actions, proves that Old Believers possess no heresy in their rituals. About the two-finger sign of the cross, the Synod itself says it is quite honorable (Exhortation, p. 54) and that the Old Believers do not attach any false beliefs to it (Preface to the Psalter).

But perhaps the Old Believers, while not erring in church traditions, might err in matters of faith, Gospel truths, or the holy synodal rules? No. They do not err in these matters either; and again, this is testified to by your New Ritualist Church itself. Here is what is said in the Exhortation to the Old Believers, published with the blessing of the Synod itself:

“Tell us, you who are called Old Believers!” the Holy Church of Christ asks. “Tell us, why do you separate from us? You believe in the one God, glorified in the Holy Trinity, just as we do; you confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, just as we do; you regard the Holy Gospel and the holy ecumenical and local councils as the rule of faith and a godly life, just as we do; you anticipate the resurrection of the dead, just as we do; you hold that there will be reward for the good and punishment for the wicked, just as we do. And in these matters lies the entire essence of faith” (Exhortation, pp. 35–36).

This is what your Church said about the Old Believers a hundred years after the Church’s division under Nikon. But did the Old Believer Church change its Christian faith in subsequent times? No, it did not. A hundred and twenty years after the issuance of this Exhortation, specifically in 1885, a council of New Believer archpastors literally repeated these very words on behalf of the Church (see Acts of the Kazan Council).

Thus, by the testimony of your own New Ritualist Church, the Old Believers never and in no way held any heresies; both in the essence of faith and in all church traditions, they are fully Orthodox, meaning the ship of the Old Believer Church is strong, whole, and entirely undamaged. Needless to say, by remaining in such a Church, one can fully attain eternal blessedness.

If the Old Believers hold the Orthodox faith, it naturally follows that they listen to the Church of Christ, for she commanded only such a faith to be held. And if they do not listen, it is not to the Church of Christ but to heretics or a heretical church. This is affirmed by your own archpastors. Archbishop Nikifor of Astrakhan says: “You (Old Believers) believe and obey the Church, which teaches you the dogmas of the holy faith and the laws of Almighty God, without which no one can be saved; but you do not wish to obey or believe those who, with common consent, show you certain traditions, such as the manner of folding fingers, the chanting of Alleluia, and other minor things. To whom, then, do you in this matter show faith? To Makarios (Metropolitan of Moscow) and his council (the Stoglavy Council)” (Book of Nikifor of Astrakhan, Answers to 15 Questions, p. 324).

This is brief, clear, and fair. The Old Believers listen to, believe in, and obey the Church in all things, without which no one can be saved. They refuse to obey or believe only in minor matters: in the manner of folding fingers, in the chanting of Alleluia, and so forth—not of the ancient Church, but of your post-Nikonian New Ritualist Church. To the ancient, pre-Nikon holy Church, they also submit, believing in and obeying Metropolitan Makarios of Moscow and the Stoglavy Council as representatives and true expressers of the Orthodox Church’s teachings. Such testimony about the Old Believers is given by the archpastors of your Church.

Priestless Believer: You have proven very well that the Church is not merely walls and roofs but faith and life, and that Church is true—like a strong ship—that upholds the Orthodox faith. You have made your case splendidly, and you have entirely justified us. We, the Priestless, hold the true faith and church traditions; therefore, we are fully in the right, and the ship of our Church is strong and intact.

Old Ritualist: The teaching of the holy fathers about the Church as faith and life does not justify you in the least. Your Priestless community holds an entirely distorted and incorrect doctrine on many essential matters of faith. For instance, your views on worship, sacraments, priesthood, and many other matters are based not on the teaching of Christ but on the teaching of Antichrist. If one asks you, for example, why you do not have the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—about which the Savior Himself said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53, reading 23)—you typically reply that the Antichrist has arranged things such that there is no sacrament of Communion, and therefore, one can be saved without it. This means that the teaching of your community is based not on Christ but on the Antichrist. If there were no Antichrist, your Priestless community would not exist, and you would have no justification; your entire justification depends on the Antichrist. That is why your teachers make every effort to find Antichrist, in some form or other: some of them claim that the Antichrist is the pastors of the New Ritualist Church, others say that the name Jesus is the Antichrist, while others assert that the Antichrist is apostasy into heresy, and so on. You have invented so many Antichrists to justify your miserable condition without hierarchy, sacraments, and worship. But the cause of your pitiful state is not the Antichrist; it is yourselves and your own pride. You refuse to observe the rules requiring the acceptance of clergymen coming from heresy in their ranks—this is the true reason for your unfortunate condition.

By shifting your own fault onto the Antichrist, you have adopted views about him that are entirely contrary to the teachings of the holy fathers. The holy fathers teach that the Antichrist will be a man, born of Jewish descent, and will rule for only three and a half years (Book of Faith, ch. 30; Commentary on the Apostle, p. 549). But you teach that the Antichrist is not a person, but rather an apostasy or a multitude of people holding erroneous beliefs. I am not even mentioning the many other mistakes and errors of your community.

Thus, your Orthodox faith and the teachings of the holy fathers are distorted, which makes the ship of your church appear riddled with holes.

To Whom Are Bishops Compared by Those Who Assert They Cannot Err? And Regarding Free Will

New Ritualist: Your reasoning is eloquent, but it’s unfair. Suppose the Church could exist without a bishop, like a ship lacking some of its crew, and that, by preserving the Orthodox faith, it remains a sound vessel. Even so, you Old Believers are still in the wrong. After all, you had no bishops because you believe that all of them fell into error. The question then arises: where is it written that all bishops can err and go astray?

Old Ritualist: And where is it written that they cannot?

New Ritualist: There’s no need to prove that. Individually, any bishop might err, but collectively—never. It is in the nature of the episcopal rank that all bishops of the Orthodox Church cannot fall into error. This is what our Orthodox Church teaches.

Old Ritualist: First, this is written nowhere. Second, if bishops cannot err and fall into error, then that would mean they are not human. Consider for yourself: who cannot err and go astray? Only God, on the one hand, and animals, on the other. God cannot err or go astray because He is the highest, most perfect, all-good, and all-holy being. Animals, and all creatures devoid of reason and free will, cannot err or go astray because they lack intelligence and free will. Therefore, if your Church teaches that bishops cannot err or go astray, it places them either on par with God Himself or with mindless beasts. Both of these views are equally blasphemous and contrary to the teachings of the holy apostles and fathers. Humans, no matter what rank they hold, are always capable of falling into error. The holy Apostle Paul teaches that not only bishops but also apostles and even angels from heaven can err and fall into error, which is why he pronounces an anathema on them if they dare to stray into error (Galatians 1:8, reading 199). And the holy Apostle John the Theologian plainly says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8, reading 69). The Council of Carthage in its 128th rule decrees: “It is also decreed concerning the words of the holy Apostle John: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). If anyone dares to interpret this as if it were said only for the sake of humility, and not as a true statement, let him be anathema. For the Apostle continues and adds: ‘If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9).” This makes it very clear that these words are spoken not only for humility but as a matter of truth. For the Apostle might have said: “If we say we have no sin, we exalt ourselves and lack humility,” but instead, he said: “we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” thus plainly showing that anyone who claims to be without sin does not speak the truth but lies (complete translation of the canons). The venerable Evagrius teaches: “There is no angel who cannot sin, nor is there a demon who is evil by nature; both were created by God with free will” (Philokalia, vol. 1, p. 617). From this teaching of the holy apostles and fathers, it is evident that no rational creature is incapable of erring and going astray; not only bishops but even apostles and heavenly angels could err and fall into error, though, without a doubt, they will not.

New Ritualist: By teaching that bishops, apostles, and even angels from heaven can err and sin, you clearly demean and insult them. This is an unforgivable audacity, which is rejected by our Orthodox Church. It teaches that not only angels or apostles but also bishops cannot err or sin.

Old Ritualist: The teaching that not only bishops but apostles and even angels could err is not my own but that of the holy apostles and fathers, and as such, it is neither demeaning nor insulting to anyone. In fact, it is your teaching—that bishops cannot err—which is demeaning and insulting to them: it likens them to mindless animals and deprives them of the hope of eternal blessedness for upholding the Orthodox faith. A sheep cannot be fierce; it is a very meek animal. But for its meekness, it can receive no reward from God, precisely because it cannot be anything but meek and cannot become fierce. Beasts, animals, and in general all creatures cannot err, cannot stray into heresy; but they receive no reward for this, precisely because they cannot err or stray into heresy. The same applies to your bishops: if they cannot err or fall into error, cannot deviate from Orthodox faith, then they deserve no reward for holding it, because they cannot do otherwise, they hold it by necessity, not out of love for God and His holy commandments. Such teaching held by your Church indeed degrades and offends the dignity of bishops. And if your Church teaches that they cannot err and go astray by virtue of their qualities and holiness, like God Himself, this is an unforgivable audacity that insults God Himself.

The teaching that bishops can err and sin, and can uphold Orthodox faith, contains nothing strange or absurd, nor anything opposed to the Word of God. If they can err and fall into error, can deviate into heresy, but do not do so out of love for God and His holy commandments, they will receive a great reward from God. The martyrs could have denied Christ, but they did not—and for that, they received the Kingdom of Heaven. The holy ascetics could have committed all manner of evil deeds but refrained—and for that, they received a worthy reward from God. The holy fathers and teachers of the Church could have fallen into heresies and errors but did not—and thus, they were deemed worthy of inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, unbelieving pagans could have believed in Christ, but they did not—and thus, they perished. Heretics could have refrained from falling into heresy but did not—and so they will be condemned to eternal torments.

This teaching of the holy apostles and fathers on the free will of every person to act as he sees fit and to receive due recompense for his deeds is in no way demeaning or insulting either to bishops, apostles, or even to angels themselves. St. Basil the Great writes:

Why is a man wicked? By his own choice. Why is the devil evil? For the same reason; because he had a free life and was given the power either to remain with God or to turn away from the Good. Gabriel is an angel and always stands before God. Satan was an angel and completely fell from his rank. The will preserved the former in the heavens, and the free will cast down the latter. The former could have become an apostate, and the latter could have refrained from falling. But one was saved by insatiable love for God, while the other became rejected through separation from God (Works of Basil the Great, Part 4, Homily 9, p. 157).

Thus, the free will to choose good or evil, to keep or break the commandments of God, and to uphold or reject the Orthodox faith is in no way humiliating for bishops, nor even for the angels themselves. But your teaching, that bishops allegedly cannot err or fall, indeed degrades and insults not only bishops but every rational creature, making them akin to mindless animals, and contradicts the teaching of the holy fathers.

St. Basil the Great also addresses those who question why sinlessness was not granted in our very nature, such that it would be impossible to sin even if we wanted to. He writes: “For the same reason that you do not consider your servants reliable only when they are bound, but when you see them fulfill their duties voluntarily. Therefore, God also desires not forced, but voluntary actions. Virtue comes from free will, not from necessity; free will depends on what is within us, and what is within us is free. Therefore, whoever blames the Creator for not making us naturally sinless does nothing less than prefer an irrational nature to a rational one; he favors an unmoving, will-less nature over one endowed with free will and autonomy” (Works, Part 4, Homily 9, p. 156). Thus, the teaching that bishops, as human beings endowed with free will, can err, go astray, and also uphold the Orthodox faith, is not at all degrading or insulting to them. If they uphold the Orthodox faith by choice, then this is a virtue; if they uphold it by necessity, then holding the Orthodox faith is not a virtue, for virtue comes from free will, not from necessity.

And if bishops, as you teach, cannot deviate into heresy or sin, cannot help but uphold the Orthodox faith, and thus remain in it out of necessity rather than of their own free will, then holding the Orthodox faith is no virtue for them, and they can expect no reward from God for it, just as a sheep receives no reward for its meekness, or an animal receives no reward for being unable to fall into heresy. Generally, mindless and unfeeling creatures, like cattle, trees, or stones, fulfill the laws established by the Creator without fail. So, by your teaching about bishops being unable to stray into error or sin, you grievously demean and insult them, likening them to senseless animals or to completely soulless creations.

It is even worse if you claim that bishops cannot err or go astray because of their personal or hierarchical qualities, virtues, and attributes. This would equate them to God Himself, who by His nature cannot err; and that is a great and audacious blasphemy. The venerable Ephraim the Syrian teaches: “If by nature we are evil, then the Creator is to blame; but if our free will is evil, then the guilt lies with us. If we lack free will, then for what is our will held accountable? If our will is not free, then God judges it unjustly; but if it is free, then it rightly faces judgment. Accountability is inherently tied to freedom. The law encompasses both; for free will is accountable if it oversteps the boundaries set by the Judge. Why should a truthful Creator deceive us? If He did not give us freedom, then He gave us no law” (Works of Ephraim the Syrian, Part 5, ch. 146, pp. 38-41). “Blessed is the Creator, who does not compel the faithless; for they have received free will” (ibid., p. 350). The outcome of the battle depends on a person’s free will—whether they are victorious or defeated in this struggle (ibid., ch. 169, p. 322). “All men have intelligence and with it, free will; thus, each one lives according to his will; God compels no one to live either virtuously or wickedly. Each person’s choice determines good and evil. For every man ought to live well and godly, for he possesses both reason and free will: thus we praise those who choose good by their own will, not out of necessity; and especially all Christians ought not to be forced to correct sinful stumbling. The Lord crowns not those who avoid sin by necessity but those who willingly do good. What is naturally good is a requirement; but what is chosen freely is praiseworthy and leads to salvation” (Gospel Commentary, Homily on the Prodigal Son). “God neither forces nor compels one to His will, but respects free will. Who, having invited one to honor and crowns and feasts and festivities, drags him forcibly, tied, into it? No one; for that would be oppressive, not honoring. God calls us to heaven willingly, and sends to hell unwillingly; and why do not all make this choice? Only because of their own weakness, which God does not remove from us. Why not? Because He honors us, calling us kindly with His goodness.” (Great Catechism, ch. 43, p. 193).

In the Gospel Commentary, we read: “The Gospel: ‘Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house’ (Matt. 5:15). Explanation: ‘I, says (Christ to the apostles), have kindled the light of your heart and placed it on high to shine to all; and that the grace that is in you should not go out depends on your effort. This is what it means to not put it under a bushel, but to let the light of your life shine to others’” (Commentary on Matthew, reading 11).

After all of this, how can you dare to proclaim that bishops cannot err or go astray by the nature of their rank? Does this not insult God? Is it not an affront to the episcopal rank to either equate bishops with God or liken them to mindless, senseless creatures lacking free will, such as cattle, trees, or stones? Do you not strip them of the hope of receiving eternal bliss for upholding the Orthodox faith?

Divine Grace Does Not Forcibly Restrain Bishops from Falling into Error

New Ritualist: Our Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops can never err or fall into heresy, but this does not equate them with God or with animals. Rather, the Church teaches that bishops are prevented from falling into heresy because, even if they desired to do so, God’s grace would not allow them.

Old Ritualist: But that is even worse. If divine grace restricts bishops’ freedom to such an extent that they do good and hold to Orthodox faith not by their own will, but because divine grace prevents them from acting otherwise, then it means that God Himself deprives people of the Kingdom of Heaven not only for good deeds but even for holding to the Orthodox faith. This view not only diminishes the dignity of bishops, but it also directly insults God and contradicts the teachings of the holy fathers.

This truth is so undeniable that even theologians of your own church confirm and demonstrate it. Metropolitan Macarius writes:

Divine grace does not restrict human freedom, nor does it act upon it irresistibly. Although God works in us both to will and to act according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), and without His grace we can neither undertake nor accomplish anything truly good, nevertheless, this divine power, working in and through us, does not at all restrict our freedom, nor does it compel us irresistibly to do good. Therefore:

Scripture commands people to open their hearts to grace and not harden themselves against its influence. ‘Behold,’ says the Savior, ‘I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me’ (Revelation 3:20). ‘Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts,’ repeat the sacred writers in both the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 94:7-8, Isaiah 55:3, Hebrews 3:7; 4:7). What would all these statements mean if a person could not resist grace, if it acted upon him irresistibly?

The Word of God actually testifies that people can resist grace, and resist it stubbornly, in spite of all its efforts. ‘What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?’ God says in the Old Testament regarding the people of Israel (Isaiah 5:4). ‘I have stretched out My hands all day long to a disobedient and contrary people, who walk in a way that is not good, according to their own thoughts’ (Isaiah 65:2). ‘Therefore I will choose their delusions, and bring their fears on them; because when I called, no one answered, when I spoke they did not hear; but they did evil before My eyes and chose that in which I do not delight’ (Isaiah 66:4; see also Isaiah 65:12, Proverbs 1:24, Jeremiah 7:13). In the New Testament, St. Stephen the Martyr cried out concerning the Jews, ‘You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you’ (Acts 7:51). Pointing to this sad example, the Apostle Paul urges Christians, ‘Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience’ (Hebrews 4:11).

Scripture is filled with exhortations, promises, and warnings to encourage people toward virtue. But what purpose would all these exhortations, promises, and warnings serve if grace acted upon people irresistibly, so that they could not help but do good when drawn to it by divine power?

The holy fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously preached that a person freely acts in choosing and performing good deeds and is not constrained by divine grace. For example:

St. Justin Martyr writes: ‘We did not make ourselves, but by His power who created us, we are urged to follow Him with reason, choosing what is pleasing to Him’ (Apology, 1.10).

St. John Chrysostom states: ‘God compels no one; but if He wills and we do not will, our salvation is impossible—not because His will is powerless, but because He does not wish to compel anyone.’

St. Gregory the Theologian says: ‘The human will does not always follow, but very often contradicts and opposes the divine will’ (Oration on Theology, 4).

St. Basil the Great teaches: ‘The Spirit dwells in each person who receives Him, filling them according to their capacity, and His grace is given in measure to each according to their own capacity, not the Spirit’s capacity’ (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 9).

St. Macarius of Egypt states: ‘Human nature is capable of accepting both good and evil, of divine grace and opposing forces, but cannot be forced toward either’ (Homily 15, §54). Without the consent of the human will, God Himself produces nothing within a person, even though He could do so, due to the freedom He has granted mankind (Homily 37, §10).

Even the apostles, though perfected by grace, were not forcibly restrained by grace from following their own will, even if that will had led them contrary to grace. Though they could not sin, this was not because they were coerced, but because they were illuminated by such divine light and granted such grace that they did not exalt themselves (Homily 27, Parts 10, 11). Furthermore, even from those perfected by grace, the Lord expects the willingness of the soul to serve the Spirit, so that will and grace may be in harmony, as the Apostle instructs: “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19) (Word on the Exaltation of the Mind, No. 16).

Sound reason, too, cannot overlook the fact that if divine grace restricts a person’s freedom and irresistibly compels them toward good, then all incentive for virtue is removed, all merit of their good deeds is nullified, and their morality as a whole is undermined—with God Himself being blamed for all of this! How can such an idea even be allowed? (from Theology, by Metropolitan Macarius, Vol. 2, §193).

Yet you not only permit such an idea but positively embrace and preach it, contrary to the teachings of the holy fathers, insisting that God restrains bishops from errors in faith by His grace, even against their will and desire—by force. If your teaching that bishops cannot err by nature or essence is foolish, as if they were animals or, indeed, irrational and insensate creatures, then this notion—that God Himself forcibly prevents them from falling into error—is outright blasphemy. Is it not blasphemy, in fact, to teach that God, by undermining all morality of bishops, deprives them of any hope of salvation and eternal bliss for adhering to the Orthodox faith and God’s commandments, let alone for virtues? This is precisely the doctrine your Church’s missionaries preach in polemics with the Old Believers.

New Ritualist: Let it be, as you argue, that God does not forcibly keep anyone in the Orthodox faith, and that He allows all Christians, including bishops, to fall into error. But even so, this does not justify you in the least. Now, if you could prove from history that all bishops simultaneously fell into error, then that would be a different matter. If you could show that such an event occurred in the Church of Christ before the time of Patriarch Nikon, that she was left without all bishops, even for one minute, then you would be entirely justified, and there would be nothing more to debate.

When Was the Church Created?

Old Ritualist: I am happy to fulfill your request. I will point to a historical event where the Church indeed lost all truly faithful bishops for a certain time. But first, I think it’s necessary to determine from what point we should begin the history of Christ’s Church—whether it started a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, or perhaps even longer.

New Ritualist: I agree with this question, but it won’t make things any easier for you. No matter where you begin its history, you won’t be able to point to a time when the Church was without a bishop.

Old Ritualist: That will be shown by the further discussion. But for now, let us decide from what moment the Church of Christ began to exist.

New Ritualist: Very well. Go ahead; I’m listening.

Old Ritualist: The Church was created by God before all else, even before the visible world, and it consisted only of holy, incorporeal spirits. To Hermas, an apostolic man, to whom the Church appeared in a vision as an aged woman, he asked why she was old. The angel replied, “Because she was created first of all, she is old, and the world was created for her” (Shepherd, Book 1, Vision 2, in Memorials of Ancient Christian Writings, vol. 2). But when a portion of this Church—called the heavenly Church, composed of angels—fell and turned into demons, God created man to replace the fallen part and placed him in Paradise to enjoy blessedness. However, when man also fell, deceived by the devil, and could not rise by his own power or free himself from the devil’s grasp, it was then that God, in His mercy, sent His Only-Begotten Son into the world to save and redeem him from the devil’s power and from hell. For this purpose, the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, fulfilled and perfected the law and the prophets (Matthew, reading 11), taught the nations, suffered on the cross, shed His precious blood, rose again, ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

During His earthly life, our Lord Jesus Christ, when Peter confessed Him as the Son of God, said, “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew, reading 67). But when and how did He establish the Church if it had already been created first of all? He created it when He shed His precious, life-giving blood on the cross, thereby purchasing or redeeming it from the devil’s power and restoring it from the fall it had suffered since Adam’s transgression. This is the very moment when the Lord established His new grace-filled Church on earth. The Apostle Paul testifies to this, saying that “the Lord purchased the Church with His own blood” (Acts, reading 44). And in the Church’s hymns, we sing, “Establish, O Lord, Thy Church, which Thou hast purchased with Thy precious blood” (Irmos of the 3rd Ode, Meeting of the Lord). “Thou wast lifted up in long-suffering upon the wood and didst establish Thy Church thereon” (Irmos of the 1st Tone, 4th Ode). “The Church which Thou didst redeem with Thy blood, Thy Church is established upon Thee” (Irmos of the 5th Tone, 3rd Ode for St.@ Olga). It is written—in the Acts of the 3rd Ecumenical Council—that the two shall be one flesh; these two are God and man, Christ and the Church, which came forth from the Bridegroom’s flesh at the moment when blood and water flowed from the side of the Crucified, giving her the sacraments of redemption and rebirth (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 3, p. 87). Saint Athanasius the Great, in his commentary on the words of the Psalm, “Thy power and Thy righteousness,” writes, “He is called Power because He bound the strong one and plundered his vessels; He is called Righteousness because He redeemed us, held unjustly in captivity. God, even unto the Highest, I shall proclaim, for not only the earthly but also the heavenly will You redeem with Your blood” (Works, part 4, p. 270, commentary on Psalm 69). Your own New Ritualist Church teaches similarly, as it says in the Theology of Metropolitan Macarius: “Even during His public ministry, the Lord spoke of His Church as already existing (Matthew 18:17). But, specifically, He founded or established His Church on the cross, where He purchased it, as the Apostle says, with His own blood (Acts 20:28). For it was only on the cross that the Lord truly redeemed us and united us with God—without which Christianity would have no meaning” (part 2, §167).

Thus, according to the teachings of the Word of God and the theology of your Church, the Church was created or redeemed by Christ on the cross through the shedding of His precious, life-giving blood. From that moment on, the New Testament Church exists. The Church, of course, existed before this as we have shown, but it was not redeemed; it was as if it were in captivity to the devil and was called the Old Testament Church. But when Christ redeemed or bought it back with His blood, that was the moment when the Church of Christ, called the New Testament Church, truly began.

New Ritualist: According to you, then, Christ did not create the Church out of non-existence but merely redeemed or improved it. But how, then, did He say, “I will build My Church”?

Old Ritualist: The word “build” here is used in the sense of improvement. Saint Basil the Great, in his discourse On the Fact that God is Not the Cause of Evil, says: “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalm 50:12). Not create anew, but renew what has been worn by sin. And again: “That He might make (build) the two one new man” (Ephesians 2:15). “Make” here does not mean to bring forth from non-existence but to transform what already exists. And again: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Moses also says: “Is He not your Father, who bought you, who created you and established you?” (Deuteronomy 32:6). Here the word “established,” following “created,” clearly indicates that it is often used to mean improvement (Works, part 4, discourse 9, p. 148).

It is clear that Christ created the Church with His blood, not in the sense of bringing it from non-existence into being, but in the sense of bringing it into a better state, renewing it, and redeeming it from the curse of the law and the devil’s power.

In any case, what is important for us here is not how Christ created the Church by shedding His blood—whether He brought it from non-existence into existence or redeemed it from the powers of darkness. What matters is when He created it. It turns out that it was when He shed His precious, life-giving blood for it. From this moment, it began, and from this point, we should start its history.

Has There Ever Been a Time When All Bishops Fell into Error?

New Ritualist: I have nothing to say against this. I agree that the beginning of the New Testament Church should be counted from the moment Christ shed His blood on the cross. Now, as you promised, prove that there was a time when all bishops fell into error, and the Church thus had not a single true-believing bishop. If you can prove this, then your community will be fully justified. But from what history will you prove it? That is what interests me.

Old Ritualist: I will prove it, not from some simple history or human account, but from the divine source itself—the Holy Gospel. It is written as follows:

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, who told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not (Luke 24:1-11, reading 112).

In the Gospel of Mark, we read further:

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (Mark 16:9-14, reading 71).

Thus, the apostles, chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ as the most worthy of men, who had themselves heard His teachings and seen His miracles, and who, by the power of God, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead (Matthew 10:1, reading 34), and who were granted knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4:11, reading 16; Luke 8:10, reading 35)—these apostles could fall into such a grave, blatant, and terrifying unbelief, disbelieving in Christ’s resurrection, even after Christ Himself had foretold it to them (Matthew 20:19, reading 81), and after reliable eyewitnesses testified to it. If all the apostles could fall into such an error, disbelieving in Christ’s resurrection, then it is even more possible for all bishops to err. The apostles did not believe, while the myrrh-bearing women were unwavering in their belief, not only not following the apostles’ example but boldly proclaiming the truth revealed by the angels, that Christ was risen. According to your understanding, these women were in the wrong for not following the apostles in their disbelief, while the apostles were in the right. But Christ thought otherwise: He did not justify the apostles for their actions but rebuked them, as it is written, “He upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart.” Christ did not call their actions doubt or error but outright unbelief.

New Ritualist: The apostles did not err regarding Christ’s resurrection; they only doubted. So, this incident cannot serve as proof that all bishops could fall into error.

Old Ritualist: That may be what you think and say, but the Holy Gospel and Christ Himself testify that the apostles were not merely in doubt; they outright disbelieved in Christ’s resurrection until He Himself appeared to them and “upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe” those who had seen Him risen. When the apostles merely doubted something regarding Christ, He did not rebuke them for unbelief but instead called them “of little faith.” “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26, reading 27) He said when they doubted His power over nature during the storm at sea. But when they fell into disbelief about His resurrection, He reproached them for unbelief. Christ could not have been mistaken about His disciples but called them as they truly were—and if He testified that the apostles disbelieved in His resurrection, then this is an undeniable truth. This is also understood in this way by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, he says, “When the myrrh-bearers returned from the tomb and told the apostles, they considered it as idle talk. Thus, by human nature, the miracle of the resurrection seemed incredible” (Commentary, p. 252). In Russian, this is rendered: “When they (the myrrh-bearers) returned from the tomb and told the apostles about this (the resurrection), they were regarded as telling nonsense. So, by human nature, the miracle of resurrection seemed unbelievable to people” (Commentary on Luke 24:11, p. 410).

This interpretation is consistent with the teachings of the Holy Fathers, as explained by more recent Gospel interpreters. For instance, Father I. Solovyov, explaining the disbelief of the disciples regarding Mary Magdalene’s testimony as recorded by the Evangelist Mark, writes: “This disbelief of the disciples toward Mary Magdalene cannot be understood in terms of mere weak faith, as was the case with the apostle Peter when he began to sink while walking on water, because he doubted (Matthew 14:30-31), or with the other disciples, who were unable to cast out a demon from a young boy during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:20, cf. Mark 6:6). The disbelief here equated to a complete rejection of the truthfulness of the event they were told about. The Evangelist Luke describes this disbelief towards the myrrh-bearers, saying, ’their words seemed to them as idle tales’ (Luke 24:11), which in Greek is `λῆρος,’ meaning nonsense, absurdity, or foolishness. The apostles did not distrust Mary Magdalene as a person but were so deeply rooted in their conviction of the impossibility of the resurrection that they could not believe it was real, even though they wished it to be true. Thus, to them, her words were perceived as mere empty talk, which they dismissed, as Mark recounts without bias” (Readings in Christian Enlightenment, November 1887, Book II, pp. 325-327).

Thus, from the very sense of the Gospel text and the interpretation of ancient and modern commentators of Holy Scripture, it is clear that the apostles did indeed fall into disbelief in Christ’s resurrection and remained in this state for a time. Yet you claim that the apostles did not fall into error when, in fact, they fell directly into disbelief. Disbelief is worse than error. Someone in error still believes in what he is mistaken about, albeit incorrectly; but someone in disbelief does not believe at all in what he denies.

The apostles specifically did not believe in Christ’s resurrection, as attested by Christ Himself and the evangelists, not merely doubting or erring, as you suppose.

New-Ritualist: If the apostles did not believe in Christ’s resurrection, then not all of them disbelieved. Peter and John believed. In the Gospel of Luke, after the account that the apostles did not believe the myrrh-bearing women, it says: “But Peter rose, ran to the tomb, and, stooping down, saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he went away, marveling at what had happened” (Luke 24:12, reading 113). This is further elaborated in the Gospel of John: “Then Peter went out, and the other disciple (John), and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed” (John 20:3-8, reading 63). Here is clear evidence that Peter and John believed in Christ’s resurrection, yet you say that all the apostles disbelieved.

Old-Ritualist: It is not I who say that all the apostles disbelieved in Christ’s resurrection, but the Gospel itself. I am only reading from it. You claim that Peter and John believed in Christ’s resurrection, but that is untrue; it is stated that only John believed, while of Peter it says only that he marveled at what had happened. Furthermore, it is said of John that he believed only after he came to the tomb, saw, and then believed, meaning that until that moment he did not believe in the resurrection. So how much time passed from the moment he first heard the news of Christ’s resurrection until he arrived at the tomb and entered, after Peter, and saw? In any case, it was not a matter of mere minutes.

New-Ritualist: Even if it were several hours, even if the apostles did not believe in Christ’s resurrection for the entire day, that does not justify you. You lacked a true Orthodox bishop for not just one day but a whole 180 years.

Old-Ritualist: Very well. Whether for one day or less, the apostles did remain in disbelief, but what matters is that there was indeed a period when the Church had no truly faithful bishops or apostles. Yet earlier, you asserted that the Church could not be without true bishops for even a minute. Now you concede that the Church could be without a bishop for not just a minute but an entire day; you only disagree that it could remain in such a state for 180 years. But while such a span is significant for us humans—one day versus 180 years—for God, there is no difference. There is no difference for Him between one day and 180 years or even between one day or moment and a thousand years. The Holy Prophet David declares: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). Saint Peter teaches: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8, reading 68). Thus, whether the Church was without a true bishop for one day or for 180 years, it makes no difference.

If the Church was not overcome even when all the apostles remained in disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection, then it was not overcome when all the bishops were in error from the time of Nikon to Metropolitan Ambrose. If the Old-Ritualist Church is guilty and vanquished because it was without a true bishop for a time, then by the same logic, the original New Testament Church itself, the one that existed at Christ’s time, would be guilty and vanquished, for it too had a period when it was without a single true-believing bishop or even an apostle, due to their disbelief in Christ’s resurrection. The length of this period is of no significance, as affirmed by Saint Peter and the Holy Prophet David. And just as, during the apostles’ disbelief, it was not the myrrh-bearing women who were worthy of rebuke for not following the apostles in their disbelief, but rather the apostles themselves who deserved reproach for their lack of faith—so too here: it is not the Old-Ritualists who are to be reproached for not following the errors of the bishops, but rather those bishops themselves for their errors.

Did the Apostles Have the Holy Spirit Before Pentecost?

New-Ritualist: It’s true that all the apostles fell into error, or even disbelief, regarding Christ’s resurrection, but this was before the day of Pentecost when they did not yet possess the Holy Spirit at all. After they received Him, however, they were no longer able to fall into error—neither as a group nor individually.

Old-Ritualist: You’ve stated several inaccuracies here. First, it’s untrue that the apostles had no Holy Spirit at all before Pentecost. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself clearly testifies that the apostles had the Holy Spirit even before Pentecost. In His farewell discourse before His Passion, He told them, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, to be with you forever—the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17, reading 48). In the Commentary commentary, it explains: “He comforts the apostles, saying, ‘The world cannot receive Him (the Holy Spirit), but a precious gift is granted to you, and He dwells with you; and more, He is in you. That which is with you represents external aid; that which is in you is an indwelling and empowering, manifesting God’s presence in you, for ‘I will dwell and walk among you, and I will be your God.’ He says, ‘The world cannot receive the Spirit because it does not know Him, but you know Him.’ Why? ‘Because you are not of this world, and therefore are His companions; and He remains with you now and will always be within you’” (Commentary, John 14:16-17, p. 234). From this, it’s evident that the apostles possessed the Holy Spirit even before Christ’s Passion, not merely from Pentecost onward.

Moreover, it is incorrect to claim that, after Pentecost, none of the apostles could fall into error. It’s known that some did fall into heresy even afterward, such as those among the Seventy: Nicholas, Demas, Phygellus, and Hermogenes, one of whom even became a pagan priest (see the preface to the old-printed Acts of the Apostles). Among the Twelve, although none fell into error after Pentecost, they did not rule out the possibility of it for themselves. On the contrary, they said, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8, reading 69). The Council of Carthage, interpreting these apostolic words, anathematizes those who claim that this was said only out of humility and not because the apostles themselves acknowledged this as true (Canon 128, full translation). The supreme apostle Paul also states, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8, reading 199). Notably, according to Saint John Chrysostom, this was said by Paul in response to claims that the apostles James and John were preaching something contrary to Paul’s teaching (see his homily on Galatians). While those who claimed James and John taught contrary to Paul were indeed lying, the significant point is that Paul did not dismiss the possibility of apostles falling into error after Pentecost. Instead, he said, “If even we do so, I do not spare them, nor do I spare myself, nor even angels from heaven.” And he did not say, “If one of us errs,” but rather, “if we,” meaning all the apostles together. So, while none of the Twelve erred in faith, they did not claim that they were incapable of error; rather, they admitted the opposite. Meanwhile, your hierarchs, even while erring in faith, stubbornly maintain that they cannot err.

New-Ritualist: You are wrong to say that the apostles had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. The Gospel states, “For the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39, reading 27). And in the Commentary, it is explained that the apostles performed miracles before Christ’s Passion not by the Holy Spirit but by Christ’s power and authority.

Old-Ritualist: It is not I who say that the apostles had the Holy Spirit before Christ’s Passion; it is Christ Himself who said, “He dwells with you.” I merely pointed out these words of the Savior. But how can we reconcile this with the arguments you presented? The Commentary continues: “The power of the Spirit was indeed in the prophets and apostles even before the Cross, but not as it was after the Ascension—that is, not as abundantly, such that it could be compared to rivers. Therefore, the evangelist rightly said that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given—meaning, not yet poured out in such abundance as it would be later. Although He was present even before the Cross, it was not in fullness, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. Here, the evangelist refers to the Cross as the glory, because through the Cross, the Lord defeated the enemy and took His place as King” (Commentary in Russian translation). I read this in Russian for clarity. Let me read another testimony:

The Spirit was given to the disciples by Christ three times. Before the Passion, He manifested Himself only faintly; after the Resurrection, He was more fully revealed; after the Ascension, He descended fully, completely illuminating and sanctifying them. Even before the Passion, the apostles cast out demons and performed various healings through the help of the Holy Spirit and grace. Ultimately, after the Resurrection, the grace of the Holy Spirit was abundantly poured out; not only did it act in the apostles, but thousands upon thousands were filled by it. Because the believers longed to receive this grace, it was said that “the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”; for He calls both the Cross and the Resurrection glory (Gospel Teachings, Eighth Sunday, p. 155-156).

Thus, the apostles had the Holy Spirit even before Pentecost, though not to the same degree as after.

It is also important to consider who the apostles were before the crucifixion of Christ and who the bishops were who fell away during Nikon’s time. The apostles were individuals personally chosen by Jesus Christ as the most virtuous and worthy among all people (Luke, reading 23), endowed with the power and authority to perform miracles and heal every disease and affliction (Matthew, reading 34; Luke, reading 40), given authority to “tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt them” (Luke, reading 51), and given the power over unclean spirits to cast them out (Matthew, reading 34). They were granted knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God (Mark, reading 16), and their names were written in heaven (Luke, reading 51), so much so that Christ called them His friends (John, reading 51) and declared them morally pure (John, reading 50) because the Holy Spirit dwelt within them (John, reading 48). This is who the apostles were.

Now, who were the bishops under Nikon? To understand this, it is best to consult someone who knew them better and more closely than anyone else. And who knew them better and more closely than anyone else? Of course, no one other than Nikon himself, as he was their direct superior and even their ordainer. What does he testify about them? His testimony is such that it is frightening and shameful to repeat. Without hesitation, he openly referred to them as a “Jewish gathering” and, more than that, even a “demonic assembly” (History of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Macarius, vol. 12, pp. 364, 405), describing their actions as uncanonical and their pronouncements as reckless (History of Russia, S. Solovyov, vol. 11).

After such statements, is it possible to imagine that, while the apostles might have fallen into disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection, the bishops during Nikon’s time were somehow incapable of any error? If such individuals as the apostles, whom Christ called His friends, could fall into disbelief regarding His resurrection, then certainly bishops of the mid-seventeenth century—whom Nikon himself considered a demonic assembly—could err concerning church traditions. It is hardly necessary to elaborate that such a “demonic assembly” could not have possessed the Holy Spirit. And if the apostles, who had at least a measure of the Spirit, fell into the aforementioned disbelief, then how much more likely were those who had none at all.

The Apostles’ Fall into Disbelief in Christ’s Resurrection Does Not Justify the Priestless Sect (Bespopovtsy)

Priestless Old Believer: Thank you, my friend, for thoroughly proving from the Gospels themselves that all bishops are capable of falling into error. If even all the apostles fell into disbelief, and the Church was not defeated, then all the more, in the absence of bishops, it can remain undefeated, preserving the Orthodox faith. This fully justifies us, the priestless sect, for we have neither bishops nor priests, as they have fallen into error, while we maintain the Orthodox faith.

Old Ritualist: No, rather than justifying you, this Gospel testimony about the apostles’ disbelief in Christ’s resurrection actually condemns you, the priestless sect, even more. The Gospel tells us that while the apostles indeed did not believe in His resurrection, they were not stripped of their apostolic rank nor made into laymen impostors, for when they did come to believe, it was they whom He sent to preach the Gospel—not others. The Gospel states: “Later, as they sat at the table, He appeared to the eleven and rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.’” (Mark 16:14-16, reading 71). So, although the apostles indeed fell into disbelief for a time, they were by no means deprived of their apostolic office because of it. But you, priestless sect members, claim and believe that as soon as bishops fell into error, they thereby lost their rank and became laymen, impostors. When the apostles fell into disbelief in His resurrection, Christ Himself appeared to them, convinced them of His resurrection, and sent them to carry out their duties—to preach the Gospel to every creature—and He did not replace them. But you, priestless sect members, when the bishops went astray in Nikon’s time, not only did not attempt to convince them of the truth of the Orthodox faith so they might fulfill their pastoral duties, but also replaced them with others, whom you call “teachers,” who have absolutely no clerical ordination, yet still perform pastoral duties.

The Lord God, who can raise up children to Abraham from stones (Luke 3:8), could, of course, have chosen other apostles when they fell into disbelief in His resurrection, but He did not. Instead, He appeared to them and brought them to faith. But you, priestless sect members, who are mere men and cannot make even one hair white or black (Matt. 5:36), completely reject ordained persons if they fall into error, and not only do not seek to turn them to the true faith but refuse to obey them even if they do repent, choosing instead teachers according to your own desires (2 Tim. 4:3). Even the disciple who denied Him with an oath (Matt. 26:74, reading 109) was not cast out from the apostles but, upon repentance, was entrusted with the care of His flock (John 21:15, reading 67). Yet you, priestless sect members, regard bishops who have not denied Christ, but have merely adopted some erroneous ideas, as laymen. In this, you are directly opposed to Christ. How, then, can the example of the apostles’ disbelief and Christ’s response to them justify you when you act in the exact opposite way?

In contrast, we Old Ritualists, who accept the priesthood, are indeed justified by the above example of the apostles’ disbelief. Just as the Gospel states that the apostles truly did fall into disbelief, we say that all bishops are capable of falling into error. Just as the Church remained fully undefeated and retained all the attributes and signs of the true Church of Christ, even when there was not a single apostle who believed in Christ’s resurrection, so too, even when it had no truly Orthodox bishop for a time, the Church retained all the attributes of the true Church of Christ and remained undefeated. Just as the apostles, while in disbelief, did not lose their rank but remained apostles, even though they did not believe in the resurrection, so too, bishops, even while in error, do not lose their rank but remain bishops, even if they are mistaken. Just as the myrrh-bearing women did not follow the apostles’ disbelief, even though Christ had commanded obedience to the apostles (Luke 10:16, reading 51), and were not deemed disobedient because of this, so too, we do not follow the bishops in their errors, even though we are commanded to listen to them, and this does not make us guilty. Just as Christ, when the apostles were in disbelief, did not reject them, did not wait for them to believe on their own, but personally appeared to them and did not say they had lost their apostolic office or become impostors because of their disbelief—though He did rebuke them for it—He confirmed their office and commanded them to carry out their apostolic, pastoral, and other duties, preaching the Gospel to all creation (Matt. 28:19, reading 116). So too, in fulfillment of His holy command to “do as you have seen Me do” (John 13:15, reading 45), we Old Ritualists, while recognizing that bishops in error have gone astray, do not consider that they have lost their rank or become impostors. Instead, we seek to turn them from their erroneous path (James 5:19-20, reading 57) and confirm them in their rank, demanding that they carry out their pastoral and Christian duties according to the commandments of God and the rules of the Church in the spirit of the Gospel.

But you, priestless sect members, contrary to Christ’s example regarding those who err, teach and believe that as soon as a bishop falls into error, he loses his rank, becomes a layman, an impostor, and can no longer be a shepherd of the Church, even if he returns from his error in sincere repentance. You seem to want to place yourselves above Christ, establishing your own new hierarchy of teachers, elders, and so forth, instead of restoring errant hierarchs to the true faith in their original rank, as Christ restored His apostles from disbelief to faith in His resurrection.

On the Ordination of the Apostles

New-Ritualist: The example you’ve provided from the Gospels about the apostles’ disbelief doesn’t justify either you or the priestless sect, but rather, it justifies our Orthodox Church. The Church teaches that while it was founded by Christ on the cross through His blood, it did not have bishops until the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and ordained them as bishops. Therefore, when the apostles fell into disbelief in Christ’s resurrection, they were not yet bishops. Thus, the example of the apostles’ disbelief does not prove that all bishops can fall into error; instead, it actually affirms the teaching of our Orthodox Church that they cannot err.

Priestless: If, as you say, the Church existed without bishops from the time of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion until the descent of the Holy Spirit, the question is: was it salvific during that time or not?

New-Ritualist: Certainly, it was salvific.

Priestless: May Christ save you for this truth. If the Church was true and salvific without any hierarchical clergy and was even founded by Christ in that very form, then this means our church is the true and salvific one, as it preserves exactly the same structure Christ gave it—that is, it exists without a clergy or sacraments.

New-Ritualist: But that is a direct path to Protestantism! Protestants teach that Christ founded the Church without a hierarchy, and that’s outright heresy.

Old Ritualist: Indeed, that’s heresy. And it’s this very heresy that Protestants, the priestless sect, and you, New-Ritualists, hold. To believe that God created His Church without hierarchy, without priests or bishops, is to believe that God created an imperfect Church. If priests and bishops appeared in the Church only after its founding, then it was not Christ but someone else who established them within the Church, and thus bishops and priests would not be an institution established by Christ. Your teaching that Christ founded the Church, but someone else established the bishops within it, is indeed a dangerous and destructive error that leads to the denial of the priesthood and hierarchy in the Church.

However, Christ established the hierarchy within the Church even before Pentecost, even before His crucifixion. The Gospels tell us that He chose the apostles (Luke 6:13, reading 23) before His suffering and crucifixion, and they were given the right and authority to perform the sacraments of baptism (John 3:22, reading 11) and anointing (Mark 6:13, reading 23). And these sacraments belong solely to bishops and priests; only they have the authority to administer the Church’s sacraments. Thus, the apostles held the rank of priesthood and episcopacy even before Christ’s suffering and the formal founding of His New Covenant Church. Therefore, when all the apostles fell into disbelief in Christ’s resurrection, they were already bishops; and though the Church at that time had no believing bishop or apostle, it remained undefeated by the gates of hell. Accordingly, the Old Ritualist Church, even when it had no truly believing bishop, remained the indomitable Church.

New-Ritualist: Although the Gospels do mention that the apostles had the authority to perform sacraments even before Christ’s suffering, our Orthodox Church teaches that they were still laymen at that time. They received the rank of priesthood only on Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. In the preface to the eight questions submitted to you Old Ritualists in 1863, it states: “The Church of Christ must contain hierarchy (the priesthood), which Jesus Christ Himself, being the eternal High Priest (Heb. 7:24, reading 316), established on Pentecost by sending down the Holy Spirit upon His apostles in the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3, reading 3), In Whom He promised to abide in the Church forever (John 14:16, reading 48).” This is when, according to our Church, hierarchy first appeared—not during Christ’s lifetime.

Priestless: You have now completely justified us. You said that the apostles were laymen before the descent of the Holy Spirit and yet had the authority to perform sacraments. This means that our “teachers,” though laymen, also have the authority to perform church sacraments. If the apostles did not err in performing sacraments while still laymen, then our teachers likewise do not err in performing sacraments as laymen. If performing sacraments as laymen is an error, then the apostles erred too. Furthermore, as you yourself claim, Christ granted the right and authority to perform sacraments specifically to laymen, as the apostles were then, rather than to priests and bishops. And to whom He gave it, it belongs. Therefore, the authority to perform sacraments belongs to laymen, not to bishops or priests.

New Ritualist: Have mercy! This teaching leads to the complete denial of the priesthood and leads directly to the abyss of Protestantism, Molokanism, and even worse.

Old Ritualist: It is true that this teaching leads to the abyss of destruction. But you yourself said that your church teaches that the apostles were laymen up until the day of Pentecost and performed the sacraments. The priestless sect took up this teaching and applied it to themselves, and then you saw into what abyss of impiety it leads. Therefore, you must either remain with your church’s teaching that the apostles were laymen until Pentecost and performed sacraments, thus agreeing with the priestless sect that laypeople have full authority to perform sacraments and thereby justify not only the priestless sect but also Protestants; or you must entirely reject the above-mentioned teaching of your church that the apostles were laymen until the Holy Spirit descended upon them on Pentecost.

New Ritualist: But how else is this to be understood? Tell me, what is your view on when Christ established in His Church the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons?

Old Ritualist: Answer the following question: Is a priest above a deacon?

New Ritualist: Certainly, above.

Old Ritualist: What ranks of the priesthood does he bear?

New Ritualist: Two: the diaconate and the presbyterate.

Old Ritualist: Good. And is a bishop above a priest?

New Ritualist: Above.

Old Ritualist: What degrees of priesthood does he bear?

New Ritualist: Three degrees: deacon, priest, and bishop.

Old Ritualist: Are the apostles above bishops?

New Ritualist: Undoubtedly, above.

Old Ritualist: And did they bear in themselves all other degrees of hierarchy: deacon, priest, and bishop?

New Ritualist: Of course, they did.

Old Ritualist: And when did Christ make them apostles—before the descent of the Holy Spirit, or after?

New Ritualist: Before the descent of the Holy Spirit; even before His sufferings on the cross.

Old Ritualist: Indeed. This is written in the Gospel of Luke: “And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor” (Luke 6:12-16). Here is when the Lord chose, revealed, and sent some of His disciples. He set these chosen ones apart from His other disciples and gave them a special name: “whom also he named apostles.” This selection, naming, and appointment of apostles Christ did not undertake lightly, but after prolonged prayer: “continued all night in prayer to God.” This was not a simple choice, like one made by people when choosing friends and acquaintances, but a special, prayerful selection with a specific designation and title for those chosen. Before this selection and appointment, they were simply called disciples, but afterward, they were known as apostles, distinct from the other disciples of Christ who were not granted this title. Indeed, in the Sunday Gospel, in the commentary on the Savior’s words, “O faithless generation, etc.,” it is written: “For this reason, Christ grieves, being falsely accused by the holy apostles and disciples; for the apostles received the word of sacred preaching, and they were ordained as teachers of the world, and shone everywhere as the light of true divine wisdom to those who rightly believed and followed well, and heeded their teaching, who would not be despised even from the beginning” (Gospel Commentary, 4th week of Lent, folio 72). Saint John Chrysostom writes: “Then (Jesus) said to His disciples: ‘The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest.’ And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; etc.” (Commentary). Saying, “pray ye the Lord of the harvest,” without their request or petition, (Christ) Himself immediately ordains and appoints them to this office (Homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew, Homily 32). In the book The Truly Ancient and Truly Orthodox Church, by Gregory, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, we read: “Saint Cyprian the martyr, in his letter to the lapsed (writes): ‘Our Lord, establishing the dignity of a bishop, and the pattern of His Church, said to Peter in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ From that time onward, the ordination of bishops continues in succession” (Part 1, Chapter 10).

New Ritualist: But didn’t you say that Christ founded His Church on the cross with His blood? And now you’re saying that He chose the apostles before His sufferings on the cross.

Old Ritualist: Christ indeed founded the Church on the cross. But its foundation was laid at the beginning of His Gospel ministry, from the time of His baptism. Even before His suffering, He established nearly all the sacraments of the Church. At least, the institution of the most important ones is directly mentioned in the Gospel: the institution of baptism (John 3:22, reading 11), communion (Luke 22:19-20, reading 108), and anointing with oil (Mark 6:13, reading 23). Thus, even before His crucifixion, the Savior established the sacred sacraments—certainly within the Church. And as proof that Christ’s Church already existed on earth before His sufferings, though not yet fully redeemed by His blood, I will read from the theology of your own church, by Metropolitan Macarius:

The desire to establish a single community from among His followers was expressed by the Savior repeatedly. For example:

1. After the Apostle Peter, speaking for all the apostles, confessed Him as the Son of God: ‘Upon this rock (i.e., the confession),’ said our Lord, ‘I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18);
2. In the parable of the Good Shepherd, He said: ‘I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine… And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd’ (John 10:14-16);
3. In His prayer to the Heavenly Father: ‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’ (John 17:21). With the thought of establishing His grace-filled kingdom on earth, He began His first preaching to people, as the evangelist Matthew recounts: ‘From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matthew 4:17). With this very message, the Lord sent His disciples throughout Judea: ‘Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matthew 10:6-8). And how often He spoke to the people about this kingdom of God, both in parables and plainly (Matthew 13:24, 44-47; 22:2; 25:1; Luke 9:11; 10:11; 17:21, 31, and others).

But what Christ desired, He also accomplished. He Himself laid the foundation for His Church when He chose for Himself the first twelve disciples, who, believing in Him and remaining under His authority, formed a single community under a single head (John 17:13); and when, on the other hand, He established everything needed for forming a distinct society from among His followers. Specifically:

1. He instituted the rank of teachers who would spread His faith among the nations (Ephesians 4:11-12);
2. He established the sacrament of baptism for admitting all who believe in Him into this community (Matthew 28:19; John 3:3; 4:1; Mark 16:15);
3. The sacrament of the Eucharist for the closest union of the members of the community with each other and with Him as their Head (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 12:23-26);
4. The sacrament of repentance for reconciling and renewing the union of those members with Him and the Church who transgress His laws and statutes (Matthew 28:18; John 20:23); as well as all other sacraments (Matthew 18:18; 28:19; 19:4-6; Mark 6:13, and others). Therefore, even during His public ministry, the Lord spoke of His Church as already existing (Matthew 18:17). But Christ actually founded or established His Church only on the cross, where, in the words of the Apostle, He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28) (Theology of Macarius, Vol. 2, § 167).

New Ritualist: Yes, now I see as well that indeed Christ chose His apostles, and with this choosing laid the foundation of His new grace-filled Church, which He later redeemed with His blood on the cross, so that neither the Church followed the apostles, nor the apostles followed the Church, but both appeared together. This refutes both the error of the priestless sect and the error of the Protestants, showing that the apostles, when they performed the sacraments, were not laymen but were chosen, appointed, and authorized for this, and that Christ’s Church was founded together with the apostles, or the priestly hierarchy.

Priestless: But didn’t you say that your church teaches that the apostles were laymen until the day of Pentecost and that only on that day did they receive the rank of priesthood? You even cited evidence for this from the Eight Questions posed to the Old Believers. And now you’re saying something different.

New Ritualist: No; our Orthodox Church teaches that the apostles had the rank of episcopacy even before the day of Pentecost. What was written in the preface to the Eight Questions is the opinion of certain individuals, not the teaching of our entire Church. The Orthodox Church itself teaches differently on this matter. Let me read from a book titled Conversation with the Old Believers on the Founding of Christ’s Church, which took place in the Nikolskoe Edinoverie Monastery in Moscow at a missionary gathering on September 9, 1886. In it, it is written:

Father Xenophon demanded an answer from the priestless sect member to his question—to show where the Church founded by the Lord exists. The priestless sect member said he would show where the Church exists, as long as he was told whether a community that does not have a bishop can be considered the Church of Christ or not.

Father Xenophon, wishing to respond to this question with an answer from the Psalmist, said: “such a community, according to the word of the prophet David, is a church of the deceitful.”

This was exactly what the priestless sect member wanted, to shift the conversation from the unresolvable question posed by Father Xenophon to another question, more favorable to him.

He immediately asked: “Was the community of those who believed in Christ before the day of Pentecost considered the Church of Christ or not?”

Father Xenophon answered affirmatively.

Priestless Old Believer: There was no bishop in that Church, yet you yourself say it was the Church of Christ.

Father Xenophon: In it, Christ Himself was the Shepherd and Bishop.

Priestless Old Believer: Christ was visibly with this Church until the day of His Ascension; but who was the bishop of that Church from the Ascension until Pentecost? Tell me.

Father Xenophon paused to consider his response; and the priestless sect member, thinking he had put him in a hopeless situation, triumphantly said: “Here you have named the Church without a bishop as the church of the deceitful, yet this was precisely the condition of Christ’s Church from the day of Ascension until Pentecost! So, by that same reasoning, our Church, existing without a bishop, is the Church of Christ, not the church of the deceitful. I suggest you retract your statement that a church without a bishop is a church of the deceitful.” The priestless member spoke this with great solemnity.

Father Xenophon replied: I will not retract it.

Priestless: Why?

Father Xenophon: During the period from the Lord’s Ascension until Pentecost, the Church was still in a state of establishment; but you exist not in that time, but after the establishment of the Church.

Priestless: The time may be different, but the condition is the same. And yet you dared to call the Church in this state the church of the deceitful!

Father Xenophon: I did not call the Church in that early state the church of the deceitful, but rather your church, in your condition. And the state of that early Church is not comparable to yours. Therefore, you unjustly apply my words to that apostolic Church. Tell me—who were the apostles? What rank did they hold?

Priestless: The apostles!

Father Xenophon: And did they hold the rank of bishop?

Priestless: They did not; they were simply messengers.

Father Xenophon: According to you, then, they were laymen? – Priestless: Yes, but only as messengers of God.

Father Xenophon: The Lord said to the Apostle Peter at the Sea of Galilee: “Feed my sheep.” With these words, the Lord entrusted him with the flock, and he was already a shepherd of the sheep, not a mere sheep himself. And this was before the day of Ascension.

Priestless: It is not stated in the Gospel that Christ made him a shepherd.

Father Xenophon: When Christ entrusted Peter, along with the other apostles, to feed the sheep, it already meant that the Lord made them shepherds. But your leaders have no commission from Christ to feed the sheep; thus, the condition of your church does not correspond to the condition in which Christ’s Church existed from the Lord’s Ascension until Pentecost.

At this point, two other missionaries present joined the discussion: Father Vasily Travin from Simbirsk and Father Tryphon Prokopyev from Vladimir. One of them said: “On the evening of the first day after the Resurrection, the Savior, appearing to the apostles, said, `As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.’ And having said this, He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ Thus, the apostles received the power to forgive sins at that time; this is a power that belongs only to bishops and those priests ordained by them. How then, after receiving such authority, can they be called laymen and compared to your unordained teachers? Isn’t this a dishonor to the holy apostles and to Christ Himself?!”

The member of the priestless sect, ignoring the missionaries’ arguments, remained steadfast in his opinion. Although the priestless sect member left the discussion, not renouncing his view that the Church of Christ had no bishops from the day of the Lord’s Ascension until Pentecost, claiming that the apostles only received the dignity and authority of the episcopacy on that day, and that the Church’s hierarchy supposedly began only from that day, the conversation was nonetheless useful for dispelling this erroneous opinion. The missionaries presented Scriptural evidence that the apostles received the power to perform acts belonging to bishops even before Pentecost (Conversation with the Old Believers on the Founding of Christ’s Church, pp. 11-12).

Let me read further from another book on this subject:

After presenting the teaching on Christ’s Church and its holy sacraments, the missionary Matveyev once again turned to the priestless Old Believers with a question: ‘Without having among you the divinely established three-tiered hierarchy, and with it the seven holy sacraments, can you attain salvation?’ Timofeev (a priestless Old Believer) responded, `To your question I answer thus: before the day of Pentecost, there was neither priesthood nor sacraments in Christ’s Church, as is the case with us now. The state of the Church before Pentecost was salvific; therefore, we, too, will be saved. That is my answer to your question!’

Matveyev replied, ‘It is unjust to claim that neither priesthood nor sacraments existed in Christ’s Church before Pentecost, and it is equally inappropriate to compare the unfortunate state of your community with the condition of the Church before Pentecost. Jesus Christ, during His earthly life, chose twelve from among His disciples and called them apostles, as the evangelist Luke recounts: “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Luke 6:13). The word “apostle” means not only “one who is sent” but also a “steward of mysteries,” as the Apostle Paul explains in 1 Corinthians: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1). The word “apostle” also signifies “bishop,” as is confirmed by the words of the blessed Theodoret: “As I have said, those whom we now call presbyters and bishops were once called apostles. But in time, the term ‘apostle’ was reserved for the actual apostles, while the title of `bishop’ was given to those whom they ordained” (Commentary of Theodoret on 1 Corinthians 3:1).

From the General Epistle of James (5:14), it is evident that only ordained persons, no less than presbyters, can perform the sacrament of anointing with oil, for it is written: “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the Lord shall raise him up.” This sacrament was already being performed by the apostles during Jesus’ earthly life, as the evangelist Mark attests: “And they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13, reading 23). Victor, a presbyter of Antioch in the fifth century, commenting on this passage—‘And they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them’—observes: `What the Apostle James speaks of in his canonical letter does not differ from this; for he writes: Is any sick among you?’ (Dogmatic Theology of Macarius, Vol. 4). Clearly, the apostles were vested with the authority of bishops and presbyters during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, and they performed the sacraments. This was before the day of Pentecost.

At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ authorized the apostles to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist, as seen in the Gospel: “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19, reading 108). This, too, was before the day of Pentecost. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples behind closed doors and, standing in their midst, said: “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:21-23, reading 65). It is evident that with these words Jesus Christ empowered the apostles to perform the sacrament of penance. This, too, was before the day of Pentecost.

After His resurrection, our Lord Jesus Christ commanded the apostles to perform the sacrament of baptism. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19, reading 116). This, too, was before the day of Pentecost. All these scriptural references, concluded Matveyev, clearly testify that the apostles were already stewards of the mysteries before Pentecost. Therefore, it is in vain that the priestless Old Believers, who are laymen without the divinely instituted church hierarchy, attempt to equate their community with the state of the Church before Pentecost; to think of the apostles as the priestless Old Believers do is to disbelieve the word of God.

Timofeev (the priestless Old Believer) said, ‘You’ve only given us your personal interpretation, naming the apostles as bishops before Pentecost. Can you point out where exactly in the Holy Scripture it says that the apostles were called bishops before Pentecost? I can show you from the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council that neither bishops, presbyters, nor deacons existed before Pentecost. Here is what is stated in Canon 16 of that council: “Explaining this, the teacher of the Church, John Chrysostom, speaks thus: ‘It is indeed remarkable how the people did not become divided in their choice of men, nor did they reject the apostles. But it is essential to know what status these men held and what ordination they received: was it the rank of deacons? But there were none in the Church at that time; was it the office of presbyters? But there was no bishop yet—there were only apostles. Hence, I think that neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was known or in use.’” Now you see,’ Timofeev said triumphantly, `that there were no bishops before Pentecost. This means you’ve been misleading us with your supposed evidence.’

Matveyev replied, `It is incorrect for you to say that I was giving my own interpretations regarding the existence of the hierarchy in the Church before Pentecost, or that the apostles were called bishops and authorized by the Lord to perform the sacraments. It is clear to all listeners that I did not introduce any of my own ideas in this matter but proved everything based on Holy Scripture. As for the 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council that you cited to support your claim that there were no bishops before Pentecost, I think it’s necessary to first ask you: what do you believe—were there bishops after Pentecost or not?’

Timofeev: `Yes, we do not deny that there were bishops after Pentecost; we firmly assert that the apostles received ordination on the very day of Pentecost.’

Matveyev: `Then listen to the purpose of Saint John Chrysostom’s words cited in Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which you just read. The Fathers of the Council of Neo-Caesarea, by Canon 15, forbade there to be more than seven deacons even in a large city, basing this rule on the Acts of the Apostles, where the selection of seven deacons is mentioned. The commentator of that canon, speaking on behalf of the Sixth Council, states: “The Fathers of the Council of Neo-Caesarea misunderstood this, and we compared the meaning of the Fathers of that council with the book of Acts and found that it was not concerning men serving the sacraments but serving at the tables,” referencing the book of Acts (Kormchaia, folio 56 verso and 182). Thus, the seven deacons mentioned in Acts chapter 6 were appointed to serve at tables long after Pentecost. If we interpret Saint John Chrysostom’s words as you do, it would imply that even after Pentecost there were no bishops; yet you yourself said that episcopacy was established on the day of Pentecost.

From this, I think it is clear to you that Saint John Chrysostom’s words mean that the name ‘bishop’ was not yet in use, not that the office of bishop did not exist or that the apostles were not authorized to perform sacraments. And that these words of Chrysostom should indeed be understood in this way is affirmed by the blessed Theodoret, whose testimony I cited earlier. As for your question, asking where exactly the apostles are literally called bishops, listen to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Apostle Peter quotes the prophetic words concerning Judas’s demise: “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein,’ and ‘his bishopric let another take’” (Acts 1:20). Here Judas’s ministry is called a “bishopric,” and later, when speaking of choosing an apostle to take Judas’s place, the same ministry is called “apostleship” (verse 25). Commenting on this prophetic passage about Judas’s fall, the blessed Theodoret states: “And this prophecy was fulfilled because Judas, in his despair, died by hanging, and Matthias was appointed to fill the number of apostles” (Psalm 108:8, Commentary of Theodoret).

I think it necessary to also present further evidence from Scripture, which clearly demonstrates that episcopacy was established by Jesus Christ during His earthly life. Saint John Chrysostom, in his homily on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, 15:7, says that James, the brother of the Lord, was ordained as the bishop of Jerusalem by Christ Himself. Elsewhere in Chrysostom’s works, we read (Vol. 1, Miscellaneous, p. 330): “Episcopacy was instituted by Christ Himself.” In the Prologue of October 23, we read: “James, the brother of the Lord, was consecrated as the bishop of Jerusalem by Christ Himself.” In the book On Faith (folio 24), we find: “Another James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was appointed by Christ Himself and was slain by the malice of the Jews.” In the Book of Kyrill (folio 77), it reads: “The Aaronic priesthood, as temporary, ceased, but Christ’s eternal priesthood arose, He who, rising from the dead, consecrated His apostles by ordination, that is, by the laying on of hands”.

From the testimonies presented, it becomes very clear that bishops existed even before Pentecost. Therefore, my interlocutor Timofeev’s criticism of me for supposedly fabricating evidence regarding this issue is baseless. (Vladimir Eparchial News, 1889, No. 10, p. 274-277, unofficial section, article “Conversation of the Orthodox with the Old Believers in the Village of Borisovo,” and separate reprint, p. 5 and onward).

This is how the Orthodox Church teaches about the establishment of the hierarchy and sacraments in the Church: bishops were established during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, when He chose and named them apostles; they were entrusted to perform the sacraments even before Christ’s suffering. The notion that the Church lacked bishops before Pentecost is a teaching of the priestless sect, erroneous and false.

It would be foolish to believe that they were ordained as bishops by receiving the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. For on that day, not only the apostles but also others—indeed, not only men but also women, the myrrh-bearers, and the Mother of God—received the Spirit (Acts, reading 2). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit ordained those who received Him as bishops, then that would mean even the myrrh-bearing women were ordained to this rank.

Generally speaking, regarding the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, it should be understood that He did not perform new sacraments upon them, but only fulfilled with His grace the sacraments they had already received, beginning with baptism. As Christ Himself said to them before His ascension: “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, reading 1), even though they had already received baptism with water. Saint John Chrysostom, in his commentary on this, says: “Why does Christ say, ‘ye shall be baptized,’ when there was no water in the upper room? Because the most important part (of baptism) is the Holy Spirit, through whom the water also operates. Nevertheless, we see that they were baptized both with water and (baptized) at different times. For us, both (baptisms, that is, by water and the Spirit) occur together, but back then they were separate. Initially, they were baptized by John” (Homily 1 on Acts). So, the apostles were baptized with water before the descent of the Holy Spirit, who only completed this sacrament within them. The same must be said concerning ordination. Otherwise, if one understands that the Holy Spirit performed both baptism and ordination upon them without any visible actions—without water and without laying on of hands—then it must be acknowledged that these sacraments can be received without any visible actions today, which would lead us into extreme Protestantism and eventually into godlessness.

Old Ritualist: The holy Apostle Paul writes, “But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay” (2 Corinthians 1:18, reading 169). The apostles of Christ never taught or acted in such a way that they would say “yes” at one time and “no” at another. But your New Ritualist church regards the same teaching as true and salvific at one time, and then considers it erroneous, false, and destructive at another; at one time it presents it as Church doctrine, and at another as merely the opinion of individuals.

This is by the way; the main point is that you have beautifully proven that the apostles had the rank of bishop even before the resurrection of Christ. But when He rose again, none of them believed in the resurrection, despite the fact that trustworthy witnesses proclaimed this unbreakable truth to them—they did not believe until Christ Himself appeared to them and reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, for they did not believe those who had seen Him after He was risen (Mark 16:14, reading 71). This is clear evidence that all bishops are capable of falling into error, and that the Church may for some time be left without a single true-believing, truly Orthodox bishop, and yet remain the unassailable true Church.

New Ritualist: Still, I am not convinced. At the time when the apostles did not believe in Christ’s resurrection, He was visibly on earth, as this was before His ascension. Therefore, this example cannot serve as proof that all bishops can fall into error.

Old Ritualist: If, even then, when the Lord Himself was visibly on earth, all the apostles could fall into unbelief, then it is all the more likely that bishops can fall into error when He has ascended to heaven. So, your argument only further confirms that bishops can indeed fall into error.

It should also be noted that even after His ascension into heaven, Christ remains with all believers, with His entire Church, though invisibly, as He Himself promised (Matthew 28:20, reading 116), especially when, due to persecutions, there are no church teachers or bishops, as Saint Kyrill of Alexandria writes in his commentary on the words of the Psalm: “They shall not be ashamed in the evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied” (Psalm 36:19). “The hunger of holy teachings has befallen those who have sinned—not those who are diligent in the divine commandments. The latter, when teachers are absent due to persecution, the Lord Himself will feed as those who believe in Him, by His Spirit” (Explanatory Psalter, Evphimiy Zigaben, commentary on Psalm 36, v. 19, p. 224, in note). Therefore, just as when all the apostles remained in unbelief, Christ was in the Church, so too now, when all bishops may be in error, He has not abandoned His Church with His continual saving presence.

On the Fall of Bishops

If all the apostles could simultaneously fall not only into error but even into disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection, then it is even more likely that bishops can fall into error, as indeed happened in the middle of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, it should be noted that all the apostles fell into this disbelief at once, whereas bishops did not all fall at once, but gradually.

New Ritualist: But how can you claim that during the time of Nikon all bishops fell into heresy simultaneously?

Old Ritualist: No one is telling you that. At that time, only a small fraction, and indeed a very small fraction, of bishops fell into error. Long before Nikon, one part of the bishops fell into Arianism, another into Nestorianism, later some fell into Monophysitism, others into Monothelitism, and so on; and, after a while, a large portion of the bishops fell away from Orthodoxy together with the Pope of Rome. Only a very small portion of bishops remained. And it was this portion that fell into error in the middle of the seventeenth century. The insignificance of this last portion can be seen from the fact that at the largest council to date, the Council of 1667, there were only twenty-nine bishops in total—barely three dozen (History of the Russian Church, Macarius, Vol. 12, p. 683). And even this small portion of bishops did not fall into heresy all at once, but in stages. First, only one Moscow Patriarch, Nikon, deviated when he issued his “Memorandum,” or directive with erroneous teachings on bows and finger arrangements for making the sign of the cross in 1653 (ibid., p. 118); then, in the following year, 1654, eight more bishops were misled by deception and coercion into siding with Nikon at a council; two years later, in 1656, another four Greek hierarchs joined these renegades when they anathematized Orthodox Christians; in the same year, at another council, ten bishops rejected the two-fingered sign of the cross as heresy and confirmed the anathema on Orthodox Christians for using it. Then, eleven years later, in 1667, fourteen more bishops joined these heresiarchs. These were the last bishops to fall away from Orthodoxy; after them, there were no truly Orthodox bishops left. From this, it is clear that while all the bishops eventually fell into error, it did not happen all at once but gradually.

But even if all bishops had fallen into error simultaneously, it would not be reason to be disturbed as if something unusual had happened, nor should it lead one to abandon the Orthodox faith. Besides the evidence provided, there are many other proofs of this, some of which I will present. When the heretical Monothelites imprisoned St. Maximus the Confessor and began urging him to accept their heresy, arguing that many bishops, including two legates from the Pope of Rome, had agreed with them, the saint replied: “Even if the entire world begins to commune with the patriarch (the heretic), I shall not commune with him. For I know that the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, consigns to anathema even angels who preach another doctrine” (Lives of the Saints, January 21). Remarkably, St. Maximus did not tell the heretics that it was impossible for all bishops to fall into heresy or that some bishops would remain steadfast. No; he spoke of the fall of bishops even more strongly than the heretics, who sought to shock and persuade him by pointing to the number of fallen bishops. When they told him that even the Roman legates and many bishops had joined them, he replied that even if not only many bishops fell into error but even the entire world, he would still remain steadfast in Orthodoxy, even if he had to stand alone. And he was not a bishop but merely an abbot. I am willing to concede that the heretics may have lied when they claimed that many bishops had joined them, or even that no one joined them and only the Patriarch of Constantinople stood with them. This is not important; what is important is what St. Maximus the Confessor said: if the entire world falls into heresy, I alone will not join the apostates; I will not follow them. He was not lying, of course. If, in his time, all bishops had truly fallen into heresy, he would have kept his word: he would not have followed them. Not just all bishops—even if the whole world fell into heresy, he would not have been shaken; he would have remained in the Orthodox faith. If St. Maximus the Confessor had lived in the time of Nikon, he would not have been disturbed by the fact that all, or rather the remaining, bishops had fallen into error, nor would he have followed them. Although he was not on earth at that time, his followers and those who kept to his teachings were, and they were not at all disturbed that the remaining bishops had fallen into error—they repeated St. Maximus’s words: “Even if the entire world (and not only twenty-nine bishops) begins to think heretically, the Orthodox Christian should not be led astray.”

Thus, the ancient holy Church, the holy fathers, and the teachers of the Church did not at all adhere to your missionary teaching that all bishops cannot fall into heresy. This was taught not only by St. Maximus the Confessor but by other holy fathers of the Church as well. When Pope Martin was asked to accept the heretical doctrine presented in a book called the Type, he replied: “Even if the entire world wishes to accept this new teaching, which is contrary to the true faith, I will not accept it, nor will I abandon the teachings of the Gospel, the Apostles, and the traditions of the holy fathers, even if I must suffer death” (Lives of the Saints, January 21). Likewise, St. Basil the Great, an ecumenical teacher, wrote to monks oppressed by the Arians: “Let not the multitude of people disturb you, agitated like the waters of the sea by winds, for if even one is saved, like Lot in Sodom, he must hold fast to sound judgment, having unshakable hope in Christ, for the Lord will not forsake His saints” (Works of St. Basil, Part 7, Letter 249). Another ecumenical teacher, St. John Chrysostom, speaking about the dangers of lack of leadership and disobedience to authorities, says: “But someone might say there is a third evil—that of a bad leader. I know this: it is no small evil, and even much worse than lack of leadership, for it is better to be without a leader than to be under a bad one. In the first case, the people are sometimes in danger, but sometimes also saved; in the latter case, they are always in danger and led into the abyss. Why, then, does Paul say, ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them’? He says this after advising, ‘Remember those who spoke the word of God to you, consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith’ (Hebrews 13:7). And he adds, `Obey your leaders and submit to them.’ What then, you might say, if the leader is bad? Should we not obey him? Bad, you say—in what sense? If in matters of faith, flee from him and have no part with him, even if he were not only a man but an angel who came down from heaven; but if in conduct, do not inquire into that” (Homily 34 on Hebrews).

This is what the holy fathers teach, this is what the holy Church commands: even if all bishops, indeed the entire world, should think heretically and fall into heresy, the Orthodox Christian should not be disturbed as if this were something extraordinary, but should remain in the Orthodox faith, even if he must stand alone, like Lot in Sodom; for it is better to be without any leader than to be under a bad one, one who is unsound in faith.

This teaching of the holy fathers is in full agreement with the teaching of the holy apostles, upon which it is based. The holy Apostle Paul speaks even more strongly than the holy fathers whose testimonies we have cited. He says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Saint John Chrysostom interprets this passage as follows: “Note the apostle’s wisdom! So that no one might say that he is making his own doctrines out of vanity, he even subjects himself to the same curse. And since they (the erring ones) relied on the dignity of James and John, he mentions angels as well. ‘Do not point out to me,’ he says, ‘James and John; I am telling you that even if one of the highest angels from heaven should alter the preaching of the Gospel, let him be accursed.’ He does not say, ‘if they preach something entirely contrary,’ but ‘if they preach anything even slightly different from what we have preached,’ let them be accursed. Paul prefers Scripture even over angels descending from heaven. And rightly so, for although angels are great, they are servants and ministers, while Scripture is given to us not by servants but by the Lord and God of all. By pronouncing a curse on preachers and angels, he encompasses all dignity; and by pronouncing it upon himself, he excludes all kinship and fellowship. Do not tell me, he says, ‘This is what the apostles and your friends teach’; I will not spare even myself if I preach differently. However, he does not say this to condemn other apostles, as if they had distorted the preaching of the Gospel; no. For he says, `whether it be I or they, so we preach’ (1 Corinthians 15:11); but he only wanted to show that the dignity of persons is not taken into account when it comes to the truth” (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 1, pp. 33-35).

Thus, according to the teaching of the holy fathers and the holy apostles, if not only all bishops, not only the entire world, but even the apostles themselves, or even the angels from heaven, were to preach something beyond what the apostles preached, then an Orthodox Christian should not only not be troubled or led astray but should respond to them with “anathema.” If all bishops were incapable of falling into heresy, the holy fathers and the Apostle Paul would have said something like this: even if many bishops or a majority of them fall into error, one should not follow them—anathema to them. But they say that even if not only all bishops but the entire universe, and not only the entire universe but also the apostles themselves, and not only the apostles but also the angels of heaven, were to fall into error, one must not follow them.

What, then, do we see in Nikon’s time? Neither did angels from heaven preach anything beyond what was preached, nor did the apostles contradict their own teachings, nor did the entire world fall into heresy. Instead, a completely ordinary, simple, and unremarkable event occurred: an insignificant portion of hierarchs, numbering twenty-nine—many of whom had already fallen into error, with some having changed their faith several times, being Catholics, Muslims, and even renouncers of Christ, educated in Jesuit academies, and leading lives of the lowest, most immoral, and corrupt behavior—gathered in 1666-1667 for a council, confirmed all of Nikon’s previous errors, innovations, and anathemas with few exceptions, and added an additional anathema on Orthodox Christians for their adherence to Orthodox traditions. Among them, some acted maliciously, while others were simply deceived and misled, not even understanding what was happening at the council or what they were signing, as many of them did not know or understand Russian.

Yet missionaries sing praises and cry out with fervor: “All bishops! All bishops! Could all bishops fall into error? Could all bishops fall into error at once? Who dares to disobey all bishops?” and so on. But there is hardly anything here worth noting: “all bishops”—and they aren’t even three dozen. That’s what they call “all”!

The Dire State of the Church

New Ritualist: You keep insisting that bishops can fall into error and that they supposedly did so during Nikon’s time. But that still does not justify your community’s claim to be the Church. Can anything similar to what has happened to your community happen to the Church? Can the Church be brought so low as to be without bishops? That is the essence of the question, and you will never resolve it.

Old Ritualist: If you conducted this discussion impartially and listened carefully to my objections and responses, you would not say this, for your question has already been addressed, based on scriptural evidence. Let me remind you of some points. It was shown that the Church can be in a state of widowhood, that is, without a bishop, and that without a bishop, while holding fast to the Orthodox faith, it is like a sturdy ship, though lacking some crew members; shortly after its founding, it found itself without a bishop when the apostles fell into disbelief regarding Christ’s resurrection. Of course, for the Church to be without a bishop is a harsh event, a severe trial, a sorrowful disaster. But this should not disturb, nor does it disturb, a true-believing Orthodox Christian.

The writings of the holy fathers testify that such sorrowful events can occur in the Church. I will present a few examples among many. Peter Chrysologus, a fifth-century teacher of the Church, speaks of the Church as follows: “The small ship of Christ (the Church) is sometimes lifted up to heaven, sometimes descends into the depths, sometimes guided by Christ’s power, sometimes shaken by fear, sometimes covered by waves of passions, and sometimes rises through the oars of confession” (Book 1, Sermon 19, On Calming the Storm). Saint Ambrose of Milan compares the Church to the moon, which sometimes disappears but remains undiminished; it may be eclipsed, but it does not disappear completely (Commentary by Theodore Yakovlev on the Apocalypse, Chapter 20, verse 4). Elsewhere it is written: “Since the Lord governs His Church in various ways in this world, sometimes He seems to close it up in a grave, sometimes He seems to raise it from the dead, sometimes He seems to cut it down to the root (regarding its external appearance), and sometimes He seems to restore it: so we must be careful not to judge by our feelings and fleshly reasoning about what the Lord is doing in governing His Church, for its salvation is often hidden from human minds and eyes. The Lord does not bind Himself to human means or the usual order of nature, but desires by His power to surpass everything that human minds imagine” (Commentary by Irenaeus of Pskov on Hosea 1:10).

This is the dire state in which the Church may sometimes find itself: as if descending into the abyss, as if disappearing, eclipsed like the moon; at times, God seems to close it in a grave, or to cut it down to the root, only to restore, resurrect, and guide it by His power, raising it up to heaven. This truly happened to Christ’s Church: when the bishops in the seventeenth century fell into error, leaving the Church without them, it appeared as though it were shut up in a grave, as though cut down to the root, as though eclipsed like the moon, or as if it had sunk into the depths like a ship. But when Metropolitan Ambrose joined it, and it once again had bishops, it appeared restored, resurrected, and lifted up to heaven, always being governed by Christ’s power, especially in times of trial and when teachers were lacking.

Priestless: Now you have entirely justified us. You have proven that the Church, like a ship, descends into the depths, like the moon, it disappears, and even seems shut up in a grave or cut down to the root. And that is exactly what has happened to us: our Church now exists as though it were shut up in a grave, without priesthood, without sacraments, and without any hope of having them.

Old Ritualist: The testimonies we have provided concerning the Church do not apply to you and in no way justify you. They speak of how Christ’s Church sometimes descends into the depths, only to later ascend to heaven. But your church (if your priestless community can even be called a church), once it has descended into the depths, never rises from it, never ascends to heaven, and remains in the abyss without any hope of escape. Furthermore, the Church is compared to the moon, which may occasionally disappear but then returns in fullness and perfection after a time. But your priestless church, having disappeared once and for all, remains perpetually absent, not temporarily. It is also said that God governs His Church in such a way that He sometimes closes it in a grave and sometimes raises it from death. But your community, once shut up in a grave, remains there forever, without the slightest hope of rising from this spiritual death. Lastly, it is said that God sometimes cuts His Church down to the root like a tree and then restores it; your priestless community, however, has been cut down to the root and remains in that state permanently, without any hope or possibility of returning to its former condition.

Thus, while very sorrowful events may indeed occur with Christ’s Church, they are only temporary and do not leave the Church in such a miserable condition forever. Your priestless community, however, having shut itself up in a grave, cut down to the root, or disappeared, remains in this condition permanently and does not even desire or attempt to escape from it. The blame for this lies with you priestless Old Believers, who refuse to receive repentant clergy in their rank, thereby violating the sacred canons (8th of the First Ecumenical Council; 69th of the Council of Carthage) and opposing the entire practice of the Church, which received bishops from heresy in their rank.

To further convince you that indeed, great and terrible afflictions may sometimes befall the Church, but they are always temporary and not eternal, so that once they pass, the Church returns to its former state, its normal condition—I present yet another testimony from the teachings of the holy fathers. Saint John Chrysostom, in his letters to the deaconess Olympias, speaks of the Church in this way:

True, the Church is torn; her leaders are exiled; ravenous wolves have invaded the sheepfold and scattered the flock; the powerful of the world have risen up against the sanctuary and introduced abuses and division into it. So what? Has anything like this never happened in the world before? Has Christ’s Church not grown in the midst of turmoil, and was not Christ Himself, from cradle to grave, surrounded by mockery? And if this is the case, why should we complain, and what are we with all our pitiful sufferings, when the Son of God and His apostles brought us the truth amidst persecutions and tribulations?

Oh, I do not want to conceal the evil that horrifies you; I do not wish to deny or diminish it; on the contrary, I want you to see it as it is, in its full horror, more deeply than it may now appear to you. Yes, we sail amidst a boundless storm. The ship that carries us is tossed about without control on the furious ocean. Half of the crew is in the sea; their bodies float before our eyes, swaying on the surface of the waves; the other half faces imminent death. There are no sails, no masts; the oars have been cast aside, the rudder broken, and the helmsmen, seated on the bench, clutch their knees with their hands, knowing not what to do, finding strength only for laments. The dark night hides everything until the underwater reef onto which they are driven, and only the deafening roar of the waves reaches their ears. Even the sea itself, from its depths, raises up hideous monsters, casting them onto the ship to the great terror of those aboard. In vain do I attempt, with these images, to express the abundance of calamities overwhelming us, for what human tongue could describe them? And yet, I, who ought to be more disturbed by them than anyone, do not abandon hope: I lift my gaze to the supreme Helmsman of the universe, who needs no skill to steer amidst the storm.

Therefore, one must not despair; on the contrary, one must constantly remember this truth: there is only one misfortune to fear in this world—sin and the weakness of spirit that leads to sin; all else is a dream. Snares and enmity, deceptions and slanders, insults and accusations, imprisonment, sharp swords, turbulent seas, war throughout the world—all these are nothing and cannot disturb a vigilant soul. The Apostle Paul teaches us this, saying: ‘The things which are seen are temporal.’ Why then fear occurrences that, like water flowing down a river, are swept away by time?

But, one might say, such affliction is a cruel and heavy burden! Certainly, but let us look at it from another side and learn to scorn it. Insults, disdain, and mockery directed at us by enemies—what are they in reality? Mere remnants of a moth-eaten garment, gnawed by worms and destroyed by time. ‘Yet,’ they add, ‘in the midst of these trials afflicting the world, many perish and are led astray.’ True, and this has happened many times: but after ruin, death, and deception, order is restored, peace reigns, and truth resumes its former course.

Do you wish to be wiser than God? Do you question the decrees of Providence? Rather, bow before the law prescribed by Him; do not judge, do not murmur, but repeat only with the Apostle: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!’

Imagine a person who has never seen either sunrise or sunset—would he not be troubled by the sight of the sun disappearing from the sky and night enveloping the earth? He would think that God was abandoning him. And someone who has only seen spring—would he not be troubled by the coming of winter, this death of nature? He would think that God, forsaking His creation, was leaving the world He had made. And someone who sees seeds being sown into the earth, and then watches those seeds rot beneath the soil and frost—would he not be troubled, wondering why these seeds have perished? But later he would see them reborn in the golden fields; another would see the sun rise again, and spring returning after winter. These people would later repent of their blindness and bow reverently before the order established by Providence. So it is in the moral world, in the events of life; it is enough to observe them to soon realize sorrowfully that such doubt is simply blasphemy.

Even the history of our salvation—is it not surrounded by temptations? What a source of temptation must that divine Child have been, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger, forced to leave the cradle that served as His crib to flee to a foreign land. Could many not have said, seeing the poor family of Joseph in exile, ‘What? And this is the Savior of humanity, the King of heaven and earth, the Son of God’? And they would have stumbled at it. Later, when this Child returned from exile and grew up, an unrelenting war was waged against Him on all sides. At first, John’s disciples harassed Him with their envious hostility. ‘Rabbi,’ they said to the Forerunner, ‘He who was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him!’—words of envy inspired by a spirit of malice. And when Jesus began performing miracles, how many accusations were leveled against Him, and how many stumbled! ‘Thou art a Samaritan,’ they shouted at Him from all sides, ‘and hast a devil.’ He was accused of loving good food and wine, of associating with sinners and the corrupt. Seeing Him speak with a woman, they called Him a false prophet; ‘If he were a prophet,’ they whispered, ‘he would know what manner of woman this is that toucheth him.’ At His mere appearance, they gnashed their teeth, and it was not only the Jews who harbored enmity against Him. Even His own brothers, as the Evangelist notes, did not believe in Him.”

Through these teachings, we are reminded that even Christ and His Church have endured much scorn, persecution, and tribulation. We should therefore find courage in these truths, understanding that any suffering is but temporary and ultimately, guided by divine wisdom, leads to the restoration and strengthening of the true Church.

Olympias responded, justifying her sorrow by noting that many had, under pressure from persecution, fallen into error and schism. “Do you think,” replied Chrysostom with force, “that there were no disciples who stumbled at the sight of the cross? When Christ’s enemies finally seized Him and slowly satisfied their beastly vengeance upon Him, surely the disciple who betrayed Him was triumphant at the sight of His humiliation, while others were shaken by it. And the trial, the scourging, the mockery of His royal dignity, the crucifixion—what a temptation all this must have caused! Christ was abandoned by His disciples; around Him there was nothing but insults from soldiers and the rabble, mockery, slander, and blows. ‘If Thou be the Son of God,’ they cried at the foot of His cross, ‘come down from the cross, and we will believe in Thee.’

But the ultimate insult, surpassing all the wicked schemes of unholiness, was the preference shown for a thief, a murderer stained with blood. ‘Whom do you want: Christ or Barabbas?’—‘Barabbas!’ shouted the entire Jewish people. ‘We want Barabbas, but as for this man, crucify Him, crucify Him!’ Has there ever been a death more disgraceful? And He died alone, without friends, without disciples; only one thief, a fellow in punishment, confessed Him from his own cross. No, never have all the temptations combined equaled such a stumbling block. Even His burial was an act of charity.

Such was the beginning of Truth, sent down from heaven to earth: Her path was surrounded by circumstances that tested the strong and became a downfall for the weak. She fulfilled the divine word that She Herself had spoken: ‘Woe to him who is offended!’” (From Chrysostom’s letters to Olympias; in the book St. John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia by Thierry).

Why Did God Allow the Bishops to Fall into Error and the Church to Endure Tribulations?

New Ritualist: No matter what you say, I still don’t understand why and for what reason God sent such an extraordinary and harsh trial to His Church (if your community is indeed His Church) that all the bishops departed from it, leaving it without them for a long time. Please explain.

Old Ritualist: The holy prophet Isaiah says, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him?” (Isaiah 40:13-14). We can never fully know why God arranges matters in a particular way and not another. But we can partially understand. For instance, at first glance, it may seem strange and incomprehensible why God allows virtuous people in this world to almost always suffer misfortunes, while the wicked live in peace and pleasure. Why did the apostles of Christ and Christ Himself endure suffering, while the ungodly pagans and lawless Jews lived in luxury and earthly delights? God permits this so that the steadfastness, brightness, and other virtues of goodness may be revealed, while the weakness, vileness, and other detestable qualities of wickedness are exposed; so that the virtuous are more glorified and the wicked more humbled; so that God may be more glorified on earth. Indeed, who would not marvel and praise God, seeing how the persecuted are victorious while their persecutors are defeated, how torturers perish while the tortured increase, and those who hand others over to death are destroyed while the executed spread further—this was especially manifest in the early days of the Christian Church.

Therefore, it can be firmly asserted that the historical event or incident in Christ’s Church, when it was left without a bishop, was allowed by God to reveal its immovability and invincibility, its victory in the struggle against heresies. Indeed, it was a great trial for the Church when the remaining bishops fell into heresy in 1666-7, leaving not a single Orthodox bishop. At that time, the Church had two choices: either, following apostolic and patristic teachings, to sever all ecclesiastical communion with the erring hierarchs, and thereby remain without a bishop and, apparently, without priesthood and sacraments; or to stay with the erring bishops, accept their false teachings and heresies, and cease to be Christ’s holy Orthodox Church, becoming heretical. Judging from a human perspective, the Church’s situation seemed hopeless—whichever choice it made led to calamity. What was to be done? How to escape this dilemma? The only answer was to turn to the writings and teachings of the holy apostles and the holy fathers; for only they, as the unshakeable truth revealed by the Holy Spirit, could resolve every doubt, deliver from confusion, and set the Church on the straight royal path leading to eternal life.

Turning to the divine teachings of the holy apostles and the holy fathers, Orthodox Christians saw that in no case should they follow bishops who had fallen into heresy. As we have seen, the holy fathers teach that if not only the last and insignificant fraction of hierarchs, as in Nikon’s time, but even the entire universe, the whole world, were to begin to think heretically, an Orthodox Christian should not be disturbed or accept heresies. Even if one were left alone, like Lot in Sodom, one must hold fast to sound judgment and Orthodox faith (Works of St. Basil the Great, Part 7, Letter 249), for “it is better to have no one to guide than to be led by the ungodly” (i.e., by a heretic), as taught by St. John Chrysostom (Homily 34 on Hebrews). And the holy Apostle Paul insists that even if all bishops or the entire universe, or even an angel from heaven, were to preach anything contrary to the teachings and traditions of the holy apostles and holy fathers, they should not be listened to or followed (Galatians 1:8, reading 199).

This is exactly what the Orthodox Christians did: they did not follow the bishops who had fallen into heresy. And although, after the bishops’ apostasy, there were no Orthodox bishops left among the Old Believers, many priests remained. While priests cannot ordain other priests, and without priests, it is impossible to perform any of the Church’s sacraments—without which eternal salvation cannot be attained (Great Catechism, Chapter 72)—remaining under heretical bishops and accepting their false teaching would clearly violate the divine teaching against obedience, even to angels if they preach something new.

To resolve this dilemma, Orthodox Christians turned to the teachings of the holy fathers and saw that, although one must never listen to or have communion with heretical bishops and priests, when they repent from heresy and return to the true faith, they should be accepted in their clerical ranks. This is commanded by the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, which decrees that Novatian clergy, upon renouncing heresy and after being anointed with holy chrism, are to retain their clerical ranks, as explained in its interpretation (Kormchaia, p. 35). This is also commanded by the holy Council of Carthage, which established that Donatist clergy returning from heresy should be received in their clerical ranks (Canons 69 and 99).

Thus, Orthodox Christians, having obeyed the divine command not to follow heretical bishops and consequently remaining without a bishop, also fulfilled this law of the holy Church by accepting clergy from heresy in their ranks. In this straightforward and royal manner, they emerged from the dilemma they initially faced: they did not accept any heresies, they did not follow the erring bishops, and they did not remain without priesthood and sacraments. They fulfilled the holy Church’s teaching on avoiding bishops who fall into heresy, and they did not violate the teaching that salvation cannot be achieved without priesthood and sacraments. Thus, they remained fully Orthodox Christians, upholding the Orthodox faith, with clergy and the Church’s sacraments.

At the same time, another group of Christians, focusing solely on the belief that salvation is impossible without the priesthood and sacraments, sought only to fulfill this teaching. They followed the bishops who had fallen into heresy, reasoning that it was better to remain with hierarchs, even if heretical, than to be without them. Thus, they transgressed the teachings of the holy fathers about refusing obedience to anyone who deviates from the Orthodox faith, regardless of rank or status. These are the Nikonites, or New Ritualists.

Another group of Christians followed the part of the teaching of the holy apostles and fathers regarding disobedience to erring hierarchs but neglected the other teaching of the Church concerning the acceptance of clerics who repented from heresy, allowing them to remain in their ecclesiastical ranks. As a result, they found themselves entirely without priesthood, without sacraments, and without liturgical services—in short, without that which is essential for attaining eternal blessedness. These are the Priestless, or Bespopovtsy.

Thus, both the Bespopovtsy and the New Ritualists follow only one part of the holy Church’s teaching while violating the other. The Bespopovtsy adhere to the doctrine of not following heretical bishops but clearly violate the patristic teaching on receiving those who repent. Meanwhile, the New Ritualists hold to the doctrine of the necessity of the priesthood and sacraments for salvation but ignore the teaching about refusing obedience to bishops who have fallen into heresy. Therefore, both groups are in grave error, clearly mistaken, and unorthodox. The New Ritualists veered off the royal path to one side, and the Bespopovtsy to the other, opposite side; yet both are following a false path, not the true one. This is why it is said: “Here is the catholic Church, which believes in the entire Gospel and the whole teaching of the ecumenical councils, and not in part.” (Great Catechism, Chapter 25, p. 121 verso). All heretics believe in Scripture, but only in part, and thus they are heretics. Only the Old-Rite Church, possessing the priesthood handed down by Christ, truly believes and follows the whole Gospel and patristic teachings; it walks the straight royal path, not deviating to the right or left, and therefore always emerges victorious from all difficulties and temptations encountered in this world, proving itself to be the true Church of Christ.

From all this, it is evident that the Lord allowed His Church to remain for some years without a bishop to demonstrate her steadfastness and invincibility—her fidelity to His holy commandments. He also showed His omnipotence and power by preserving her undefeated and unconquerable through means that seem contrary, by providence beyond our earthly reasoning. It may seem to us that it would have been better if the bishops had not fallen into heresy and the Church had always remained with Orthodox bishops. But God judged otherwise: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Therefore, we must be cautious, as it is written in the commentary on the prophet Hosea, not to judge according to our feelings and earthly wisdom concerning how the Lord governs His Church. For the Church’s salvation is often hidden from human minds and eyes. The Lord does not bind Himself to human means or the ordinary course of nature, but wills to exceed all human imagination by His power (Commentary on Hosea, Irinei of Pskov, Chapter 1, verse 10). Hence, the counsels, thoughts, and ways of the Lord are entirely opposite to ours and are as far from them as heaven is from earth. Therefore, we should not judge by our earthly wisdom how the Lord governs His Church.

To our senses, to our earthly wisdom, it might seem better for the righteous to live in peace and pleasure in this world and for the wicked and sinful to suffer punishment and misfortune. But God arranges things in a way that usually the opposite happens. This is so that no one can say that the saints live virtuously because they enjoy all earthly blessings, while the sinful and lawless live wickedly and do evil because they dwell in hardship and misfortune. This was especially revealed in the story of righteous Job. The devil slandered him, claiming that Job kept God’s commandments and lived virtuously because God had endowed him with all earthly blessings. To silence the devil, God allowed Job to lose all his possessions and children in a single day. But righteous Job remained faithful to God even after this, proving that he followed God’s will not for earthly pleasures.

Similarly, concerning the Church: it may seem better for her not to endure persecutions but to reign in peace, for even her name indicates her royal nature, as “Church” means “Queen” (Great Catechism, Chapter 25, p. 119 verso). But God judged otherwise: He permitted His Church to endure the most severe persecutions and sufferings during the first three centuries, yet she remained undefeated and unbreakable.

The devil could still slander the Church, claiming she remained invincible and unbreakable because there was internal peace and unity of faith. To refute this slander, God allowed heresies, false teachings, and delusions to arise, which for a long time agitated, shook, and tore apart Christ’s Church more severely than any persecution. Yet, even through this, they could not overcome her; she remained faithful to God’s commandments, preserved the Orthodox faith, and emerged victorious from this trial as well. But the devil could still accuse Christ’s Church, claiming that she remained steadfast, invincible, and unwavering in faith because she had many bishops and not because Christ redeemed her with His blood, guides her, and that she loves Him as her Savior and Bridegroom.

Just as the devil slandered righteous Job, suggesting that he remained faithful to God because he was healthy, though he had lost his possessions and children, God finally allowed the devil to strike Job with a severe and prolonged illness. But when Job remained faithful to God even after this, the devil could slander him no longer, and he was utterly defeated and disgraced, while righteous Job emerged victorious and glorified. Similarly, the Church, when she remained several years without a bishop, enduring such a severe trial while remaining faithful to God’s commandments and firmly holding the Orthodox faith, could no longer be slandered by the devil or anyone else who might claim she remained faithful out of mere human loyalty or self-preservation. All her enemies were shamed and defeated, and she emerged victorious and glorified.

Saint John Chrysostom proclaims (Homilies on Various Occasions, vol. 1, p. 339): “The devil, a cunning and skilled schemer, hoped that by destroying the shepherds, he could easily scatter the flock. But, He who catches the wise in their own craftiness (God), wishing to show him that it is not people who govern His Church, but that He Himself shepherds believers everywhere, allowed this so that the devil, seeing that even after the extermination of the shepherds, piety did not diminish, and the preached doctrine was not destroyed, but even grew stronger, might know from the very events, as might all his servants, that our doctrine is not of human origin, but has descended to us from the heights of heaven; that God Himself governs the churches everywhere, and that one who engages in battle against God can never emerge as the victor.”

From this, it becomes evident that the Lord allowed the bishops to fall into heresy to demonstrate the steadfastness and invincibility of His Church even in the most severe trials and in times of utmost tribulation. This was to reveal His omnipotence all the more—that, even after the bishops departed from the Church, He could preserve it, remaining faithful to His holy commandments, unconquerable by all the schemes and plots of the enemy. He did this to shame His adversaries and the enemies of the Church and to glorify her, proving that even without bishops, she retained the Orthodox faith unshaken.

Indeed, the very Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ, was especially glorified on earth at the moment when all the high priests of the Old Testament Church abandoned Him and rose up against Him. Yet He, despite this, remained obedient to the Father even unto the death of the cross, not doing His own will but that of the Father who sent Him, a will He upheld even through suffering—saying, “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42), meaning the one divine will of the Father and Himself (Simeon of Thessalonica, Russian trans., Vol. 2, Ch. 21). Similarly, His Body, the Holy Church, was especially glorified when the bishops abandoned her, yet she remained faithful to the will of God and His holy commandments despite this.

Prophecies of the Fall of Bishops and Tribulations of the Church

New Ritualist: If, as you say, the absence of bishops in the Church was permitted by God to show its strength, unbreakability, and invincibility, then there should be some prophecy or foretelling about this, since all important events have prophecies. Yet, I see no hint of this either in the Old or New Testament. If there is, please show me.

Old Ritualist: Indeed, for every significant and notable event occurring in the Church, there are prophecies or predictions. However, it’s worth noting that prophecies generally appear obscure and indefinite to the carnal mind, and thus, those who are not right-minded may misinterpret or disregard them. Even about Christ, though there were prophecies, the Jews did not believe them, striving instead to distort and interpret them in opposition. Likewise, prophecies exist concerning events in the Church, but for unbelievers, they hold neither significance nor strength; only believers find them compelling and powerful. Although prophecies may seem lacking in clarity and specificity, there are, in fact, very clear and specific prophecies regarding the bishops’ fall into heresy and the Church’s temporary period without them—so clear, in fact, that it seems no event or occurrence in the Church was foretold with such clarity and precision.

In the book of the “Apocalypse,” which prophetically lays out the entire fate of the Church through various symbols and images, chapter 6 reads: “And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind” (Rev. 6:12-13). In the threefold commentary on “Apocalypse,” it explains that “the stars falling to the earth” indicates that the teachers of God’s Church will fall from true doctrine, while the moon becoming as blood signifies that the Church of God will be temporarily darkened by heretical false teaching. The sun becoming dark refers to Christ, of whom gloomy false doctrines will be preached (Ancient Writings on the Apocalypse, ch. 18). In the book On Faith, chapter 21, it states that the stars falling from heaven represent, according to the interpretation of the saints, the notable spiritual leaders of the Church, who are seen as the heavens on earth (p. 187). Similarly, in the book of Kyrill of Jerusalem, the fallen stars are interpreted as hierarchs who deviate into error (ch. 15, 4th letter of Meletius, pp. 451-452).

The renowned Church teacher Blessed Jerome interprets the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah as follows (chapter 4, verses 5-6):

“Declare ye in Judah, and publish in Jerusalem, and say, ‘Blow ye the trumpet in the land; cry, gather together, and say, Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the defended cities. Set up the standard toward Zion: retire, stay not: for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.’” (Interpretation): Let this be heard in Judah, let it be heard in Jerusalem, where there is the confession of faith, where Christ’s peace dwells, and to whom through Isaiah it is said, “O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem” (Is. 40:9); let him cry aloud and command: let us go to the fortified cities. The heretics’ wars rise up; let us be protected by the strongholds of Christ! Raise the banner of the cross on a high place, on the height of the Church; take heart, O fearful ones, do not stand still, but run to the help of Christ. He says, “I bring disaster from the north and great destruction,” referring to the true Nebuchadnezzar (that is, the devil), whom I permit to act in this world so that your strength and victory may be tested.

(Chapter 4, verse 7): “The lion has come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the nations is on his way; he has gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant.” (Interpretation): This is, as we said, the true Nebuchadnezzar, whom the Blessed Apostle Peter also speaks of, saying, “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). He goes forth from the depths where he is bound and prays not to be cast out. The destroyer of nations, mentioned here, refers to the one who rules over all his enemies (Ps. 9:26) and who boasts before the Lord, “I walked throughout the whole earth” (Job 2:2). For who escapes the poison of the devil except the Only One who can say, “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30)? He often lays the whole earth waste, causing those who leave the Church to wage war against her. Of them, the evangelist John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us” (1 John 2:19). The cities of the land of Judah are laid waste, while heretical gatherings flourish. Thus, if anyone proves to be a supporter and instigator of false doctrines, it can be said of him, “the lion has come up from his thicket, the destroyer of the nations is on his way,” and so on.

(Chapter 4, verse 8): “For this gird you with sackcloth, lament and howl; for the fierce anger of the Lord is not turned back from us.” (Interpretation): We can avoid the fiercest beast, the devil, only by repenting and turning to the Lord not only in mind but also in deeds. For as long as he ravages the Church and the land of Judah and destroys Jerusalem, it is evident that the anger of God continues upon us.

(Chapter 4, verse 9): “And it shall come to pass at that day, saith the Lord, that the heart of the king shall perish, and the heart of the princes; and the priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.” (Interpretation): When the destroyer lays waste to the Lord’s Church, and God’s wrath remains upon us, then all human assistance is useless. The heart of the king, who should hold God’s heart in his hands, will perish, as will the heart of the princes who once seemed wise. God will turn the wisdom of the world into foolishness because they did not know Him through it (1 Cor. 1). Even the priests, who should have been teaching the law of the Lord and protecting the people from the lion’s rage, will be struck with some madness, becoming as though possessed. And the prophets will be bewildered, or will go mad. For who will not lose heart and go mad when they see their former kings, princes, priests, and prophets in the clutches of the lion?

Later, (Chapter 23, verses 1-4): “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.” This prophetic language applies both to pastors and to those in leadership. So, as we read about Jehoiachin, the penultimate king of Judah from the line of David: “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David” (Jer. 22:29-30). This prophecy, which ends all hope for the continuation of the kingdom of Judah, extends to the leaders of the Church, who, after the synagogue with its leaders was abandoned and condemned, is directed to the Apostles, of whom it is said: “And I will give you shepherds who will feed you, and you shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall any be missing” (Jer. 23:4). Here, the Apostles will shepherd the Church with confidence and without fear, and the remnant of Israel from all lands shall be saved and the flock shall increase. The Lord shall visit the wicked pastors—the scribes and Pharisees—according to their iniquitous ways. In an extended sense, this prophecy applies to unworthy Church leaders, implying that upon their abandonment and condemnation, the people will be saved, entrusted to others who are worthy, and the remnant shall be preserved. Shepherds destroy the sheep when they teach heresy; they harm and scatter them when they cause schisms; they drive them away when they unjustly excommunicate them from the Church; they fail to minister to those who are repentant. The Lord, however, will have mercy upon all such people, returning them to their former pastures and removing the wicked shepherds (Works of Blessed Jerome, vol. 6).

The prophecies we’ve read, along with Blessed Jerome’s famous interpretations and teachings, clearly indicate that disaster and great destruction shall come from the north, where Russia and Moscow are located. This devastation arises from the attacks of the devil, whom God allows to desolate the Church in order to test the strength and victory of the faithful. Kings, princes, priests, and prophets will find themselves under the power of the devil, falling into heresy and causing schisms. From this will arise great disaster and immense tribulation for the Church, making it appear as if it were a wasteland. However, complete destruction will not follow, due to the mercy of the Judge, and a remnant shall be saved, entrusted to other pastors who are worthy. All of this was fulfilled for the Old Believer Church when, during Nikon’s time, the tsar, princes, and ecclesiastical leaders—the bishops—and the prophets—the teachers of the Church—fell into heresy, causing schisms, wounding, scattering, and destroying the flock. The Church indeed appeared as if it were only a remnant, resembling a desert; yet it was not utterly destroyed. This remnant was saved and entrusted to others who were worthy when Metropolitan Ambrose joined the Old Believer Church, providing it with the necessary number of hierarchs.

This prophecy, clear as it is in itself, becomes even clearer in light of another equally explicit prophecy or foretelling, which we shall now present. In the book On Faith, chapter 30, it is written: “Saint John the Evangelist marked the end times in his epistle, saying, `Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come’” (1 John 2:18). Indeed, there are many precursors, but he himself is near, as indicated by his number, 666 (Rev. 13). The Antichrist’s number is that of a man. Who knows whether in the 1666th year, either his precursors or the Antichrist himself will appear? (pp. 269–270). Here, it is questioned or assumed that, in the 1666th year, there would be either the manifest precursors of the Antichrist or the Antichrist himself—one of the two. Indeed, in the year 1666, a council was held in Moscow, which approved various innovations, abolished the holy Stoglav Council, rejected ancient Church traditions, and cursed Orthodox Christians for adhering to these traditions. Thus, the manifest precursors of the Antichrist appeared, and they turned out to be the members of the council of 1666-1667.

To prevent us from mistaking these precursors of the Antichrist for the Antichrist himself, as the Priestless do in error, On Faith immediately clarifies: “But the Antichrist will be a man, the son of iniquity, born, as Hippolytus of Rome says, of a vile Jewish woman from the tribe of Dan. At first, he will appear humble, living a good life, performing miracles—though not true ones, but mere illusions—and he will act entirely through the power of the devil. Then he will rise and favor the Jews, elevating them. He will fiercely persecute the faithful and reign for seven years, or three and a half years according to some” (p. 270). These signs do not apply at all to the council of 1666-1667. It is stated that the Antichrist will be a man, not a council of many people, and he will be born of a Jewish woman, but the council was not born of anyone but was convened. Moreover, the members were not born of a Jewish woman. He will reign for three and a half or seven years, yet the council of 1666-1667 lasted only a little more than a year. The other signs do not fit this council either. Its members were merely the precursors of the Antichrist, for every heretic is a precursor of the Antichrist, and they were indeed heretics.

Let us read further in the book On Faith, where a prophecy about the events of the year 1666 is provided:

Furthermore, I shall not hesitate to recall that which St.@ John the Evangelist writes in the Apocalypse, in chapter 20, regarding the binding of Satan for a thousand years and then his release; the devil returns to his original beloved place, where he desired to ascend from heaven, and from that time, the West was struck with a grievous plague. There is more on this in chapter 21. After a thousand years, when the year 595 approached, the defection and deception of the so-called Uniates from the Holy Eastern Church toward the Western Church became manifest. Read more about this in chapters 23 and 24. And when the year 1666 has come, it is not unreasonable for us also to fear evil, lest we suffer some misfortune because of the fulfillment of previous scriptural testimonies; and should we not be prepared, in case anyone should live to see those times, to engage in battle with the devil himself? Therefore, we, all the Orthodox, ought to hold in memory the previous offenses and attend to this: that, after a thousand years from the Incarnation of the Word of God, Rome and all the Western lands fell away from the Eastern Church; in the year 595 after the thousand, the inhabitants of Little Russia defected to the Roman Church, giving the pope of Rome a deed of agreement: this was the second severance of Christians from the Eastern Church. Keeping in mind these writings, when 1666 years have passed, let us avoid any evil consequences from previous offenses by turning to repentance and drawing God’s mercy toward us (On Faith, ch. 30, pp. 271–272).

This is a clear testimony that in the year 1666 there would be shocking and grievous events in the Church, similar to those that occurred at the time of the Roman Church’s apostasy and during the Union in Little Russia. The Church, after that time, would suffer similar dreadful calamities, endure and bear the same great evil as it did in those times, only to an even greater degree, such that Christians would be forced to battle almost as if with the devil himself. What kind of events occurred during the Western Church’s apostasy and during the Union in Little Russia, and what evil did the Orthodox Church suffer and how did it endure? These events are described in chapters 21, 23, and 24 of the same book On Faith, which are referenced in the prophecy above. In the first of these, it is stated that when the Western Church fell, a majority of bishops fell into heresy, as if stars fell from the sky; in the latter chapters, it is described that during the Union in Little Russia, nearly all bishops not only defected but also incited severe persecution against Orthodox Christians, ultimately striving to leave the Church of Christ entirely without bishops. This effort succeeded to such an extent that the author of On Faith later expressed it thus:

It is no small miracle in the exaltation of the sacred episcopal ordination; our holy Church was left without its metropolitan and Orthodox bishops, whom Jesus Christ Himself called the eyes of the body, leaving her blind, like a body without eyes. But through the restoration of this sacred ordination, she saw once more, and by the grace of Christ, she perceives, just as when Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem ordained bishops in Little Russia. Truly, this is a glorious miracle, equal in every way to the miracles of our baptism; for, in that time, Vladimir was enlightened, and he brought the entire Russian land to the knowledge of the true God and to baptism. Now, the Church has been enlightened again through the soul-saving teaching and the operation of the sacred mysteries, holding in the true knowledge of God all the baptized in the Russian land (On Faith, ch. 23, p. 213).

And in chapter 30 of the same book, as we have seen, it is stated that the Church will be in a similar state after 1666, only to an even greater degree.

What could be stronger and clearer than these prophecies? Both the time and place, year and country, circumstances causing the Church’s sufferings, and the rank that fell from it are specified. It is stated plainly that in the year 1666, in the North, where Russia and Moscow are located, a dreadful calamity and great affliction will occur for the Church of Christ: the Church’s teachers, metropolitans, and bishops will fall into heresy and thus be under the control of the spiritual lion, making the Church appear almost bloodstained or blinded, even desolate, such that all will be struck with horror and amazement. However, all this will only last for a time, not forever; the faithful will not be completely annihilated, a remnant will be saved, and the Church, after the trial has passed, will regain its former splendor, and Christians will be entrusted by God to other shepherds who are worthy. All of this will happen to test the Church’s strength and invincibility, to manifest the power and victory of the faithful.

That these prophecies indeed came true and were fulfilled for the Old Believer Church with remarkable accuracy is evident without further explanation.

Let me briefly summarize what has been said throughout this discourse. We have proven that bishops can err and go astray, first, because they are rational beings with free will; second, because God does not forcibly prevent anyone from falling into heresy by His grace, allowing even the holy apostles to fall into disbelief in Christ’s resurrection; third, because neither Christ, nor the apostles, nor the holy fathers attributed infallibility to any person, but instead taught that all could err and be led astray.

It was also shown that the Old Believer Church, even when left without a bishop, did not cease to be an Orthodox Church because it preserved and maintains the true faith, and such a church is considered widowed, not heretical; it was shown that a church can be in widowhood, whereas the one that does not widow but even boasts, “I sit as a queen and am no widow” (Rev. 18:7), it is frightening to even consider what it might be; furthermore, it was shown that the Old Believers rightly believe in the Church professed in the Creed, that the Church is likened to a ship, and that this ship is solid and unsinkable among the Old Believers. It was shown that the Church can endure severe and seemingly extraordinary sufferings, with half its crew overboard and the ship itself sometimes sinking into the abyss, covered by waves of passions, sometimes vanishing like the moon, even being sealed as if in a tomb or cut down to the root like a tree, only to be restored to its former state; and it was also demonstrated that there are prophecies in Scripture and the holy fathers about the fall of bishops and the tribulation of the Church without them.

Many more proofs could be presented on this issue, but what has already been given is sufficient.

Proofs That All Bishops Cannot Err. The Parable of the Minas

After all this, I have every right to ask you a question: where is it written in Scripture or by the holy fathers that bishops can never fall into heresy?

New Ritualist: There are many clear and undeniable proofs of this, which I will now present. I deliberately held them back until you finished expressing all your points. The first and foremost proof that bishops cannot fall into heresy is found in the Holy Gospel itself. Christ told the following parable: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten minas, and said unto them, ‘Do business till I come back’” (Luke 19:12-13, reading 95). In the Commentary, it reads:

To his servants he gave ten minas; these servants were entrusted with the Church; ten symbolizes the perfection of the Church’s order. For in the Church, order is maintained by those who stand before it: neither more nor less than these; the words refer to the Church in three forms of grace: purification, enlightenment, and completion. These three activities are carried out by the ranks of clergy: deacons purify through the teaching of catechesis; priests enlighten through baptism; bishops ordain and complete, which is ordination. Do you see the ranks corresponding to activities: no more, no less than those who stand before it? Therefore, to each servant he gave ten minas, representing gifts, and each was given for the benefit of others. For each person entrusted with office, even if unworthy, receives a gift from his ordination; and this is truly a great mystery of God’s love for mankind (Commentary on Luke, reading 95, p. 206).

Here is clear evidence that bishops cannot fall into error. And you will never refute it, for these are the words of the Savior Himself.

Old Ritualist: I do not intend to refute this, nor will I, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the passage you presented, there is no statement that all bishops are guaranteed never to fall into heresy. It merely states that Christ established three ranks within the Church corresponding to three roles that make one a Christian: bishop, priest, and deacon. But what was required of you to prove was not this, but rather that all these ranks will always remain faithful to their Lord. And that, precisely, is not evident from the passage you read. So, you have worked in vain, presenting a testimony that proves something other than what you were supposed to prove. And it was not only in vain but also somewhat misleading. You stopped short of reading the entire parable—specifically, the part that directly and conclusively addresses our question. So we need to read it in full. But first, I must point out that wherever the hierarchy is listed, it is typically in descending order: first bishops, then priests, and finally deacons. In your passage, however, the ranks of the hierarchy are listed in the reverse order: deacons, priests, and bishops. And in the parable, in the part that you left unread, it decisively states that among these ranks, the first two, or two servants, proved faithful to their Lord, while the last one proved unfaithful. Thus, this parable serves as a direct prophecy that bishops would be unfaithful to the Lord and fall into error, while priests and deacons would remain faithful to the Lord’s commandments. This, indeed, occurred during Nikon’s time when bishops fell into heresy, while priests and deacons did not. Let us read the parable itself:

And it came to pass, that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Lord, thy mina hath gained ten minas.’ And he said unto him, ‘Well done, good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, thy mina hath gained five minas.’ And he said likewise to him, ‘Be thou also over five cities.’ And another came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, here is thy mina, which I have kept laid up in a napkin. For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.’ And he saith unto him, ‘Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with interest?’ And he said unto them that stood by, ‘Take from him the mina, and give it to him that hath ten minas.’ And they said unto him, ‘Lord, he hath ten minas.’ ‘For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.’ (Luke 19:15-26, reading 95)

Thus, the parable from the Gospel itself clearly testifies that one of the three servants, or ranks in the hierarchy, proved unfaithful to God’s commandments—and it is this last servant, identified in the commentary as the bishop. Remarkably, although this servant proved unfaithful, the talent entrusted to him was neither lost nor destroyed; it was simply left inactive, as though buried in the earth, so that the faithful servant later received it intact. All this fully justifies the state of the Old Believer Church.

New Ritualist: In the parable in question, it is stated that the talent was transferred from the unworthy servant to another servant. How should this be understood with respect to bishops who fall into error?

Old Ritualist: St. John Chrysostom says of parables: “In parables, not everything should be interpreted literally; rather, understanding the purpose for which it is told, one should take this for their benefit and not examine further” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 3, p. 99, Homily 64). Based on this, regarding the transfer of the talent from the unworthy servant to the more worthy one, we can say the following: bishops who have fallen into error pass on the gift of ordination to other persons, of whom the worthy are those who convert to the Orthodox faith and increase the talent given to them by God. Such were the Old Believer priests who came out of heresy, and finally, Metropolitan Ambrose.

Overall, the parable you cited does not prove what you wanted it to prove but rather the opposite. You tried to prove that bishops cannot fall into heresy, whereas it says quite the contrary.

The Promise of God: Lo, I Am with You

New Ritualist: But I have one more piece of evidence against which you will be unable to argue. It directly proves (p. 47) that bishops can never fall into heresy. In the book On Faith, it is written:

As the herald of the Father’s wisdom and power, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and the Shepherd of shepherds, having established the one Church as the one body with Himself as its sole Head, and having laid down His life for His people, whom He redeemed with His precious blood, He did not desire to leave His possession on earth without proper order upon His ascension to heaven. Rather, He took two denarii and gave them to the innkeepers, namely, the Old and New Testaments. To whom did He give them? Who are these innkeepers? The Apostles, and after them their successors—the pastors and teachers, archbishops and bishops—who serve as ministers of His majestic providence, and to whom He promised to remain until the end of the age. In accordance with this unfailing promise, He graciously chooses worthy individuals for Himself, and He ordains and sanctifies them through the ordination of the holy order via patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops (On Faith, ch. 7, p. 59 verso).

Here is clear proof that bishops can never fall into error. It directly states that the Lord promised to be with them until the end of the age, which implies, of course, in Orthodoxy.

Old Ritualist: You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding the words from the book On Faith. It does not say that the Lord promised that bishops would remain in Orthodoxy until the end of the age; it only says that the Lord will be with them. It does not say “remain,” but rather “be with,” or “accompany.” These are two different concepts. “Remain” implies continuity or constancy for something over a period; however, “be with” implies a presence, one person being with another. Much like the words wayfarer and companion carry distinct meanings, so too do “remain” and “be with.” In the passage you read, it states not “remain” but “be with”—meaning Christ did not give bishops a guarantee of remaining eternally in the Orthodox faith, but rather that He would be with them. Just as in the book On Faith the Gospel hymn proclaims: “Christ God and Savior of our souls promised to be with them unfailingly” (Hymn 1, First Tone). This expression, “to be with them,” is based on the words of the Savior spoken at His ascension: “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, reading 116). This only demonstrates that Christ will be with those who believe in Him, not that bishops can never fall into heresy.

This is the meaning of the passage you quoted from On Faith

New Ritualist: But this still supports my point—that bishops cannot fall into heresy. If Christ promised to be with the apostles and their successors—the bishops—until the end of the age, then how could they fall into error or heresy? If bishops were to fall into heresy, then with whom would Christ be? He would have no one to be with, thus breaking His promise to remain with the apostles and bishops until the end of the age.

Old Ritualist: What childish reasoning! What weak logic and flimsy evidence! Does God really depend on people to fulfill His intentions and promises? Transgressors of God’s commandments themselves become guilty and will face punishment, but God does not suffer or bear guilt because of this. You claim that if bishops fall into error, then God would have no one to be with, implying that He would suffer a lack and be held accountable for an unfulfilled promise. This is not the teaching of the holy fathers. “The One who made the promise is not at fault,” writes Blessed Jerome, “if the one to whom the promise was made becomes unworthy of it, especially when the promise comes with a choice: `If you are willing and listen to Me, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse, the sword shall devour you’” (Works vol. 10, p. 277, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel ch. 20:5-6). “The kingdom of heaven is promised to me in the Gospel,” says this same teacher of the Church elsewhere, “but if I do not fulfill what is commanded, the fault lies not with the One who made the promise, but with me, for failing to earn what was promised. When free will is part of the choice, if you are unwilling to strive, it is foolish to expect the reward” (Works of Blessed Jerome vol. 3, Letter 105, p. 317).

Moreover, do you not know that Christ is with not only the bishops but all believers—both priests and laity? When the bishops fell into error in Nikon’s time, there remained Orthodox priests and laity who did not follow them. Therefore, your assertion that God had no one to be with is utterly unfounded. And the promise of the Savior—“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age”—refers not only to the apostles and their successors, the bishops, but also to all believers. This is demonstrated, firstly, by the fact that at His ascension, when He made this promise, not only the apostles were present but others as well, including women. Secondly, St. John Chrysostom explains it thus: “He is not saying He will only be with them (the apostles), but with all who believe after them. For the apostles themselves could not remain until the end of the age; He is speaking to all the faithful, as to one body” (Homilies on Matthew vol. 3, Homily 90, p. 530; Gospel Explanation of Matthew, reading 116). This presence of the Savior with all believers can be called direct, as He Himself is present with each Christian. But Jesus Christ is also present with believers indirectly—through the sacrament of His body and blood—as St. Symeon of Thessalonica writes: “Until the end of the age, He will be with us through His mysteries” (Response to the Archbishop, 56, p. 414). Thus, when bishops were in heresy, God still had people to be with—specifically, all believers who kept His commandments, such as the Old Believers and their priests.

Finally, the Lord is present both with all true believers who faithfully follow His holy commandments and also with those who transgress them and stray into impiety. “It is a faithful saying,” declares the Apostle Paul, “For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also will deny us: if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:11-13, reading 293). Blessed Augustine states: “O Thou, who art everywhere present! Yet Thou dost stand far from wicked thoughts. Nevertheless, Thou art also present where Thou seemest far off; for where Thy grace of salvation is not, there Thou art present in the judgment of vengeance” (The Mystical Theology, Book 3, ch. 28, no. 3). In Blessed Jerome’s commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel, we read: “And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all, that ye say, `We will be as the heathen, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.’ As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you” (Ezek. 20:32-33). (Commentary): This means, ‘Do not think that the thoughts in which you blaspheme against Me can be fulfilled. For you say, ‘We will not be under the dominion of the Lord, nor be called His people, but, like all the nations across the earth, and as each nation follows its own will, to honor wood and stones and serve idols, so will we be one among many peoples.’ To this, God replies, swearing by Himself, and says, ‘I will not leave you, nor forsake you, as masters commonly forsake and despise runaway slaves, but I will return you under My authority and, with an outstretched arm and in wrath, I will bring you back to your former service and rule over you, so that you, whether according to your will or against it, shall have Me as your King, and shall experience the wrath of the King whose goodness you despised’” (Works of Blessed Jerome, vol. 10).

Thus, even if the bishops fell into error in Nikon’s time, this did not exempt them from God’s authority: He ruled over them and remained with them in the judgment of vengeance, in the outpouring of wrath and fury. Therefore, His promise to be with all believers, including bishops, is not negated by their deviation into error. He remains with them nonetheless, if not through the grace of salvation, then through the judgment of vengeance, even if they do not wish for Him to be present in such a way.

Although God remains with erring hierarchs in this manner, He withdraws His saving grace and assistance. St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on the Apostle Paul’s words, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,” teaches: “This is also what the Lord commanded, saying to His disciples, ‘Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.’ But this occurs if we so desire; for He will not be with us if we drive Him away. He said, ‘I will be with you always.’ So let us not drive away His grace” (Homilies on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, 2 Thessalonians, Homily 5, p. 2358).

Thus, Christ’s promise to be with us teaches not that bishops should live complacently, assuming that God will prevent their fall into sin and error, and allowing themselves to sin under the delusion that their mistakes are not their own but rather fall upon Him, who promised to always be with them. No, this promise does not encourage such absurdity and presumption, which your doctrine seems to promote. Rather, it teaches that if God is always with us, He sees all our deeds, words, and thoughts, and therefore we must avoid any actions that offend God, “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called” (Eph. 4:1, reading 224), and fulfill the will of God by keeping His holy and salvific commandments. Otherwise, while we may not lose His presence, we shall incur punishment for our deeds.

In general, the promises of God are not nullified by human sin, as they were not negated by the fall of Adam and Eve. After creating them, God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). According to your reasoning, one could conclude that Adam could not transgress God’s commandment; otherwise, God’s promise of the multiplication of mankind and dominion over the earth and all its creatures would be broken. Following your logic, one might say, “If Adam were to die on the same day he broke the commandment, how could he multiply and have dominion over the earth afterward?” Consequently, God would have to prevent him from falling, at least until he had children, so as not to break His promise and blessing of humanity’s increase. But events did not unfold according to such human speculations. Adam broke God’s command even before having children, yet humanity multiplied from him and filled the earth—the divine promise was not broken in the slightest. Likewise here: the bishops fell into heresy, yet God’s promise to remain with them, as well as with all believers, was not broken. If the bishops could not fall into error, God would have told them so, saying, “You cannot stray.” But He made no such promise; rather, He issued this warning: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13, reading 10). Here, then, are two promises of God: one, that He will be with them always; and the other, that they may become salt that has lost its savor, that is, fall into error. Yet these promises do not contradict each other. We see that both of these promises were indeed fulfilled among the bishops who fell into heresy, just as both promises made to Adam were fulfilled. And just as the restoration of Adam required a means of salvation—the incarnation and suffering of the Son of God—so the restoration of bishops from their fall requires a means of salvation—repentance, granted to us through His suffering and death (52nd Canon of the Holy Apostles; 8th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council).

From all of this, it is clear that God’s promise to always remain with bishops, as well as with all believers, does not at all prove that bishops cannot sin or err. His promise is in no way compromised by their actions; first, because God remains with them regardless, if not through the grace of salvation, then through His omnipresence, providence, authority, the judgment of vengeance, and the outpouring of wrath and fury. Secondly, because Christ’s promise to remain was not made solely to the bishops but also to priests and laity who uphold the Orthodox faith. And the Old Believer Church has always had such faithful, even when bishops were in unorthodoxy.

New Ritualist: Let the promise of God—“Lo, I am with you”—not serve as proof of the bishops’ infallibility and their incapability of falling into error. But there are other words of the Savior that directly prove this. Christ said of His apostles and bishops: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29, reading 38). So how can bishops fall into error when no one can snatch them from God’s hand? Don’t these words of the Savior guarantee the bishops’ infallibility in faith?

Old Ritualist: No, these words do not prove that bishops are incapable of error or fallibility. They simply indicate that if someone listens to God’s voice and fulfills His commandments, no one can forcibly separate them from God. However, if someone is led astray by the devil’s deception or their own will, God does not hold them back by force. This is how the holy fathers interpret the words of the Savior that you have quoted, and we shall read from them now. In the Commentary, it says:

“But someone may ask: how did the Lord say that no one will snatch them out of My Father’s hand, while we see that many perish? To this, we may answer that no one can snatch them from the Father’s hand, but many can deceive them. For no one can forcibly or autonomously draw them away from the Father God; but by deception, we stumble every day. How then does He say, ‘My sheep will follow Me and will not perish’? Meanwhile, we see that Judas perished. But he perished because he did not follow Jesus and did not remain as one of the sheep to the end. The Lord is speaking about His true followers and sheep, who will not perish. If anyone leaves the flock of sheep and ceases to follow the Shepherd, that one will soon perish” (Commentary on John, ch. 10, p. 269).

“Some may ask,” writes Blessed Jerome, “since no one can snatch from the hands of God when He takes, carries, and holds them according to what is written, ‘No man can pluck them out of My Father’s hand’ (John 10:29), how was Judas torn from God’s hand through betrayal? To this, we answer briefly: no one can forcibly snatch them from God’s hand; but one can, of their own will, remove themselves from God’s hand, the very hand that holds them” (Works of Blessed Jerome, vol. 12, commentary on the Prophet Hosea, ch. 5:14-15).

“No one will snatch them out of My hand.” Here, there is a hint at the wolf who seizes the sheep when the hireling leaves them (John 10:12). With Him (Christ), the Good Shepherd, and not a hireling, no enemy will scatter or steal away the sheep, for they are under the protection of the Almighty (John 10:29). Moreover, in this passage, the hand symbolizes not only power and might but also the ownership of the sheep. The possibility of falling away from Christ is not denied by these words, for one who falls away is no longer one of Christ’s sheep. No enemy can overpower Him (God), and as a result, cannot snatch His sheep from His hand—that is, forcibly and against the will and desire of the faithful, they cannot be separated from God (Gospel of John, with Commentary by Bishop Michael, ch. 10:28-29).

This, then, is the meaning of the Savior’s words that no one can snatch His followers out of His hand—namely, no one can take them forcibly, against their will and desire. However, by one’s own will, anyone may fall away from God. Therefore, this evidence of yours does not prove that bishops are incapable of error or deviation.

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.

The Omnipotence of God is Not Diminished by the Fall of Bishops

New Ritualist: If we agree with you that the church can be without a bishop, we must admit that God is not omnipotent, that He promised to preserve His church unconquerable and failed to do so. You do not believe in the omnipotence of God when you say that bishops can fall into heresy and the church can exist without them. This is extreme impiety and blasphemy.

Old Ritualist: We have already demonstrated that the church remained unconquered even when bishops fell into heresy. A church is conquered by the gates of hell if it contains heresies, even if it has a bishop; but a church that contains no heresies is unconquered, even if it lacks a bishop. If it still seems to you that the bishops’ fall into heresy contradicts God’s promise, let me bring you the words of St. John Chrysostom: “Do not be troubled when circumstances seem contrary to God’s promise. For when the Lord came to save His people—or rather, to save the whole world—what was the beginning? His mother fled, His homeland was struck with intolerable suffering, and a massacre was committed—the most grievous of murders; everywhere there was weeping, lamentation, and great wailing. But do not be troubled! To give the clearest proof of His power, the Lord usually accomplishes His purposes through means that are always contrary” (Homily 9 on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 164). Thus, God’s promises are not violated simply because circumstances appear to contradict them. So, too, it may seem to you that the bishops’ fall into error and the church’s being left without them is contrary to God’s promise. But do not be troubled! St.@ John Chrysostom encourages us. Why? Does this break God’s promise? Does it show that God is not omnipotent? No—“To give the clearest proof of His power, the Lord usually accomplishes His purposes through means that are always contrary,” says the holy father.

Regarding faith in the omnipotence of God, it must be said that it is not we who doubt it, but you. We, the Old Ritualists, affirm that even if bishops fall into heresy, God, by His power and omnipotence, can preserve His church unconquered by the gates of hell. It is not our place to reason about how God should govern His church or how He should fulfill His promises most conveniently; our duty is only to fulfill His holy and saving commandments. God will govern His church and fulfill His promises and purposes not according to our sinful reasoning but by His power and omnipotence. According to your teaching, however, if bishops fall into heresy, God can no longer save His church; God can only preserve His church unconquered as long as bishops remain Orthodox. But if they fall into heresy, then neither God’s promise, nor His omnipotence, nor His providence and foreknowledge, can save His church from destruction or keep it unconquerable. With bishops, God can keep His church unconquerable, but without bishops, He can do nothing. And bishops can keep the church unconquerable without God, even when they fall away from Him to some degree or accept heresies. Such teaching is indeed impious and blasphemous: you believe not in the omnipotence of God but in the omnipotence of your bishops.

But we, the Old Ritualists, believe in the omnipotence of God, not in the omnipotence of bishops—we believe that the Almighty God can save and preserve His church unconquerable even if bishops fall into heresy.

Of course, God could have kept the bishops from falling into heresy. But if they fall, it does not mean He is not omnipotent. He does not do everything He could do. Without a doubt, He could have arranged that heresies would not exist at all, yet they exist in countless forms. He could have arranged for us never to sin, but He did not. He could have arranged that Adam did not transgress the commandment, but He did not. Yet none of this diminishes God’s omnipotence. I remind you of what I said earlier. If God had arranged that no one could ever sin, err, or fall into heresy, there would be no reward for virtue, no merit in keeping the commandments, in holding to the Orthodox faith, or in remaining in Christ’s church, and people would be like unreasoning cattle, who, as we know, have no share in the life to come.

Thus, God’s promises—“Lo, I am with you always” and “Upon this rock I will build My church”—in no way prove that bishops can never fall away from Orthodoxy or that the church cannot be without them, even for a moment.

The Head of the Church

New Ritualist: If these promises of God do not prove the infallibility of bishops and the impossibility of the church being without them, even for a short time, then I have other, stronger proofs that confirm this truth. The holy Apostle Paul compares the church to a human body, saying, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12). And the head of this body is the bishops, as written in the Kormchaia in the commentary on the 55th apostolic canon: “The bishops, being in the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, are called the head of the body of the church and are worthy of greater honor.” And this head of your body, of your so-called church, was absent for a whole one hundred and eighty years. Can a body live without a head? Certainly not. It can live without hands, without feet, without eyes, but never without a head. A body without a head is a corpse. And during that period, your church was not a living body, but a dead corpse, rotten, decayed, and stinking.

Old Ritualist: “Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken” (Psalm 36). The mud you have thrown at the Old Ritualist church, failing to reach its target, has only dirtied you. The holy apostles and holy fathers unanimously, firmly, and irrefutably testify and prove that, in the church, in its proper and natural sense, there is only one head: Jesus Christ, and no one else. Thus, the holy Apostle Paul teaches in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Ephesians 4:15-16, reading 225). And again: “Christ is the head of the church: and He is the savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23, reading 230); “He is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18, reading 251); “which is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10, reading 254). Elsewhere he commands: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Colossians 2:18-19, reading 255). Even the apostles themselves never called themselves the head of the church, but rather servants of that Head—Christ—as the holy Apostle Paul writes: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1, reading 130), and “in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God” (2 Corinthians 6:4, reading 151).

In the Great Catechism, in chapter 27, it is written thus:

Question: How many heads does the catholic church have?

Answer: One head, our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Question: Show me proof from holy scripture that Christ Himself, and no one else, is the head of the catholic church.

Answer: Listen and consider. He who is the head of the church is also her bridegroom, for these differing names refer to the same meaning. And no one else but Christ is the bridegroom of the church; therefore, He is also her head. For the holy Apostle Paul applies this title to Christ alone. Thus he speaks, as a bridegroom: “I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2, reading 191). And as the one head of the church, he writes: “God the Father gave Christ to be the head over all the church” (Ephesians 1:22, reading 219)—both the visible and the invisible church. You will find many other writings on this subject. Know and consider well that one body needs only one head; the church is one body; therefore, it needs one head, Christ. It has no other head, for if it were two-headed or three-headed, it would be a monstrosity (Great Catechism, fol. 125 verso and recto).

And it is stated in the book On Faith: “Even a simple person can understand that one body cannot have two heads; this would be strange indeed: this trait is natural only to a serpent, not to the body of the church; may the Lord not allow us even to think such a thing” (ch. 7, fol. 57). Is it not clear that anyone who says there must be another head of the church besides Christ makes the church two-headed or three-headed, a feature suited only to serpents and not to the church’s body? Yet you, New Ritualists, say that each bishop is a head of the church. And since your church has several hundred bishops, or perhaps even a thousand, your church has a thousand heads; thus, you make your church a thousand-headed monster.

New Ritualist: But I did not call bishops the head of the church of my own accord; I cited scripture. I referred to the commentary on the 55th apostolic canon, where bishops are called the head of the church. So do not accuse me; accuse that passage in the Kormchaia.

Old Ritualist: In explanation of the words you cited from the Kormchaia regarding the headship of bishops, it is written in the book On Faith: “And when, in certain places in holy scripture, this [being called the head of the church] is attributed to the holy servants of God, it is done by the grace of God as an honor for the saints, and not in the true essence” (ch. 7, fol. 57). Thus, if bishops are called the head of the church in some scripture, this is done only as an honorary title, not in the true essence. The difference between the two is immeasurable. For instance, in essence, there is only one Son of God; there is and can be no other Son of God. Yet, by honor and analogy, there are and can be many sons of God. Christ Himself said in the Gospel: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9, reading 10). Hence, every true peacemaker is called a child of God as a title of honor, not in essence.

In the same way, bishops can be called the head of the church, but this is merely a title and not an essential truth, just as a peacemaker can be called a child of God, but not truly be one in essence. This is evident from the commentary on the 55th apostolic canon itself, which states: “Bishops, being in the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, are called the head of the body of the church.” Therefore, bishops are merely titled as the head of the church, just as any person who is a peacemaker is called a child of God. But suppose there were suddenly no peacemakers left on earth, and everyone lived in enmity—if someone claimed, therefore, that the Son of God no longer exists because peacemakers are called children of God and there are no peacemakers, it would be unreasonable. Similarly, your conclusion that bishops are called the head of the church, but the Old Ritualists had no bishop, therefore, their church was without a head, is just as foolish. We would reply to this hypothetical person that even if there were no peacemakers on earth to be called children of God, we still have the one, consubstantial and only-begotten Son of God—our Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, we respond to you that although the Old Ritualist church of Christ had no Orthodox bishops titled as heads of the church from the time of Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, it still had the true, essential head—our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, your accusation that the Old Ritualist church supposedly had no head at all does not condemn us in the slightest. Instead, this grave accusation reflects back upon yourselves, for you depict your church as a monstrous creature with a thousand heads.

In the true sense, bishops are not the head of the church but only members (as Kyrill writes, fol. 24 verso); they may be compared to the eyes of the church.

The Eyes of the Church

New Ritualist: I agree that bishops are not the head of the church but only members—specifically, the eyes of the church. But this gives you no comfort. For one hundred and eighty years, you had no bishop, and therefore, no eyes. Thus, your church is blind, as indeed it says in the book On Faith: a church without a bishop is blind (fol. 213).

Old Ritualist: And what of it? Does a blind church cease to be Christ’s church? A blind person does not cease to be human; although blind, he is still a person, not an animal. So too, a church, though blind, remains a church; it cannot be called anything else. A blind church is not the same as a heretical one. To prove this, let me read from the On Faith, the very book you referenced. It states regarding the blind church in Little Russia when its bishops turned to union with Rome and fell into heresy: “Our holy church, having lost the metropolitan and Orthodox bishops, whom Jesus Christ Himself called the eyes of the body, was blind, like a body without eyes” (ch. 23, fol. 213). Here, the blind church is called holy, not heretical. Clearly, a blind church can be a holy, Orthodox church.

However, let me add a clarification: I conditionally agreed with you that the Old Ritualist church was blind during its time without Orthodox bishops. In reality, it was not entirely blind during that period. First, because the true and essential light of the church is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who said of Himself, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12, reading 29)—and all the more so of the church; He is the true light that enlightens not only His church but every person who comes into the world (John 1:9, reading 1). And secondly, because the eyes of the church are not only bishops but also priests, as written in the Kormchaia, chapter 60, and in the works of St. Athanasius the Great, “Bishops and priests are the eyes of the church” (his works, vol. 1, p. 479, and Niketas of the Black Mountain, Sermon 7). And we had priests continuously during the time when there were no bishops; therefore, even then, we had an eye of the church. Only one eye—the bishops—was missing; the other eye (the priests) was always present.

New Ritualist: So, your church was a freak! A one-eyed church! Lopsided! What kind of church is that?

Old Ritualist: Mocking and ridiculing sacred matters is your way, as you do not seek truth but only to slander and dishonor your opponent. Our task is only to believe and seek the truth. You say that the Old Ritualist church was a freak, a monstrosity, because I said that although it lacked the eye of bishops, it still had the eye of priests. But let’s assume, according to you, that it was a freak. What then? That is the real question, not the mockery. Let us see what our Lord Jesus Christ determined for a one-eyed creature versus one with two eyes. I read in the Gospel: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye” (Mark 9:47). Look at that: a church that plucks out the offending eye, left with one eye alone and, as you say, becoming a freak, will enter the kingdom of God and bring its children to eternal happiness. And what about the church that does not remove the offending eye and keeps both eyes? This is what it says: “having two eyes to be cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47-48, reading 42). Do you see? A church that does not remove the offending eye and keeps both eyes will be cast into hell fire, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. These are the words of the Lord God Himself. He will judge us at the Last Judgment according to His words and commandments, according to His holy Gospel. He said, “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48, reading 43).

So, on the last day of the dreadful judgment, the books will be opened (as it says in the hymn for Meatfare Sunday), the Gospel will be laid open—let us imagine the dreadful judgment of Christ in human terms—and Christ, the righteous Judge, will ask our Old Ritualist church, “Why were you one-eyed for some time?” She will, of course, answer, “Because I plucked out the offending eye, according to Your commandment.” “Enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 9:47, reading 42), Christ will say. Then He will turn to you, the New Ritualists, and ask, “And you, why did you not pluck out the offending eye? Why did you always keep both eyes, ignoring the fact that one was offending?” You will answer, “It was too painful to pluck out our eye, and we were ashamed to appear one-eyed, a freak.” “Cast them,” says the judgment of God, “into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47-48, reading 42).

That this saying of the Savior regarding the offending eye also applies to bishops who have gone astray is confirmed by St. Athanasius the Great. In his interpretation, he says: “Walking in the infallible and life-giving way, let us pluck out the offending eye—not the physical eye (for even the blind can commit adultery) but the mental eye. For example, if a bishop or presbyter, as eyes of the church, lives wickedly and causes offense to the people, he must be cast out. For it is better to gather in the house of prayer without them than, with them, to be cast into the fire of hell, as with Annas and Caiaphas” (his works, vol. 1, p. 479, and Nikon of the Black Mountain, Sermon 7).

Therefore, you New Ritualists ought not to mock the Old Ritualists but to mourn your own unfortunate situation, for you, along with your hierarchs, like Annas and Caiaphas, will be cast into the fire of hell for failing to pluck out the offending eye—the heretical bishops—against the commandments of God.

New Ritualist: The commentary of St. Athanasius the Great that you read indeed shows that the Savior’s words about removing the offending eye apply to heretical bishops. However, it says that such a bishop must be cast out. And who can cast out a bishop? Only other bishops, and specifically a council of bishops, with no fewer than twelve, as stated in the 12th canon of the Council of Carthage. But you Old Ritualists were left without bishops after 1667, with only priests and laypeople remaining. They have no right to judge or cast out bishops. No one has the right to separate from a bishop before a conciliar judgment against him, even if he errs in something. Yet you separated from the bishops before they were judged, which is why St. Athanasius’s interpretation does not justify you.

Old Ritualist: The holy canons indeed specify that priests and laypeople should not separate from their bishop before he has been judged, but only in cases where he holds the Orthodox faith unchanged, even if he has committed some sin. For example, if a bishop commits murder, sacrilege, or something similar, and his subordinates know of it, they should not separate from him but are obligated to bring it to the council of bishops, and once the council finds him guilty and condemns him, then they should cease obedience to him. However, if a bishop begins preaching heresies, then priests and laypeople must separate from him without waiting for a conciliar judgment. This is evidently the understanding of St. Athanasius when he said, “It is better to gather in the house of prayer without them (the bishops).” If St. Athanasius had understood as you do—that only bishops could cast out an offending or heretical bishop to give others the right to separate from him—he would have said it was better to gather with Orthodox bishops. But no, he firmly insists that it is better to gather entirely without bishops if they become heretics, foreseeing a situation where there would be no Orthodox bishops, and Christians would then have to gather without them.

That one should separate from such offending bishops before any conciliar judgment is confirmed by the holy council known as the First-Second Council, or the Double Council, in its 15th canon, along with many other holy church regulations, which I will present shortly.

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.

Examination of Testimonies from the Holy Fathers on Whether Bishops Can Err

New Ritualist: Besides the testimonies from Holy Scripture I presented, I have numerous proofs from the teachings of the holy fathers that bishops as a whole can never fall into heresy. You must know, as St. Cyprian says, “The bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop; and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the church” (Letter 56). St. John Chrysostom also says, “The church of Christ cannot be without a bishop” (Margarit, fol. 154 verso). According to Simeon of Thessalonica, “Apart from the bishop, there is no sacrifice, no priest, no altar, no ordination, nor holy chrism, nor indeed any Christians: through him comes true Christianity and all the mysteries of Christ” (Works, Book 1, Chapter 77). Finally, St. Ignatius the God-bearer testifies that all who are not with the bishop “do not work in Christ’s vineyard but are sowing the enemy’s seed and serving the devil” (Letter to the Philadelphians).

From this, it is clear that all bishops can never fall into heresy, and those who separate from the bishop are not only outside the church but are sowing seeds of enmity and serving the devil. Those who separate from bishops sin gravely, transgressing the commandments of God and the teachings of the holy fathers. All of this directly accuses you, the schismatics.

Old Ritualist: Let me read from the very church fathers that you cited. Here are the words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer from his Letter to the Ephesians: “Every man, having received the power of discernment from God, will be condemned if he follows an incompetent shepherd and accepts false teaching as if it were true” (Letter to the Ephesians). From his Letter to the Philadelphians: “Brethren, do not be deceived; if anyone follows one who has deviated from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if anyone does not separate himself from a false preacher, he shall be condemned to Gehenna. For it is improper to abandon the pious, nor should we commune with the impious” (Letter to the Philadelphians). In his Letter to the Deacon Heron, he writes: “Anyone who speaks apart from what has been commanded, even if he appears reliable, even if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he performs signs, even if he prophesies, let him seem to you like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, bringing destruction to the sheep.”

St. Cyprian the holy martyr writes:

Let the people not deceive themselves by thinking they can be free from sinful corruption by remaining in communion with a sinful priest and by consenting to the wrongful and illegitimate episcopacy of their superior. With the warning given through the prophet Hosea—‘Their sacrifices will be to them as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be defiled’ (Hosea 9:4)—the divine judgment teaches and shows that everyone becomes guilty who is defiled by the offering of an impure and unrighteous priest. The same is shown in the book of Numbers when Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who rebelled against the priest Aaron, claimed the right to offer sacrifices. There, God commanded the people through Moses to separate themselves from them so that they would not be infected by the same wickedness. ‘Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye perish in all their sins’ (Numbers 16:26). Therefore, the people who obey God’s commandments and fear Him must separate themselves from a sinful superior and not participate in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they have the power to choose worthy priests and to depose the unworthy (Works, vol. 1, Letter 56, pp. 315-316).

Furthermore, according to the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, “It is better to be led by none than to be led by an evil leader (a heretic)” (Homily 34 on Hebrews).

So what does this mean? The same holy fathers and church teachers, guided by the same Holy Spirit, say that he who is not with the bishop is not in the church—and that he who is with the bishop, if that bishop is sinful or heretical, shares in his sin and is defiled. They say that those who are not with the bishop are not part of Christ’s vineyard but instead are sowing the seeds of the enemy—and yet they also say that he who follows a false bishop will be condemned to Gehenna and will not inherit the kingdom of God. How can one make sense of this? If one does not heed the bishop or separates from him, he is at fault; and if one does heed him, he is also at fault. Is there not a contradiction in the teaching of the holy fathers?

New Ritualist: There is no contradiction here. The holy fathers teach that one should obey only Orthodox bishops, while heretical ones should not be listened to; from them, one must separate and distance oneself. Whoever follows heretical bishops will be condemned to Gehenna.

Old Ritualist: Precisely. Now prove that the bishops from the Council of 1666-67 until Metropolitan Ambrose joined us in 1846 were entirely Orthodox. If you can prove that, then we will be guilty; but if not, then we are in the right.

New Ritualist: I see you want to accuse our Orthodox church of heresies to avoid the topic at hand, but I won’t allow it.

Old Ritualist: You needn’t worry. I am not accusing you now (since that is not the point of our discussion) and will not stray from the topic, even if you desire it. I am simply trying to clarify the truth more quickly by asking: were there fully Orthodox bishops during that period—those who upheld, without the slightest alteration, the doctrines, traditions, faith, and practices that existed in the Orthodox church before Patriarch Nikon and which the Old Ritualists have maintained since his time?

New Ritualist: There were no such bishops during the period you mentioned, as everyone knows.

Old Ritualist: In that case, the holy fathers you cited do not condemn us; rather, they clearly justify us. For as insistently as they command obedience to Orthodox bishops, they just as strictly forbid listening to heretical ones. Therefore, the Old Ritualists would only be guilty if the bishops from Nikon’s time until Metropolitan Ambrose had been Orthodox, or if the holy fathers had required submission to bishops without regard to whether they were heretics or Orthodox—then we would indeed be guilty. But you yourself have admitted that the holy fathers forbid communion with heretical bishops, and there were no Orthodox bishops until Metropolitan Ambrose. Consequently, the Old Ritualist church was entirely justified in not having bishops, according to the teachings of the holy fathers you referenced.

This provides a general response to all the evidence you presented to support your erroneous view of the infallibility of bishops and to accuse the Old Ritualist church. Now, let us examine each statement separately.

St. Cyprian’s declaration that “the bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop” was made in defense of himself against an unjust accusation by a certain Pupianus, and it means that the church is only within the bishop who himself remains within the church by upholding the Orthodox faith. But a bishop who is not in the church, having fallen into heresy, obviously does not contain the church within himself. This is shown by St. Cyprian himself, who calls heretical bishops “false bishops” and describes those who commune with them as “children of the devil and full of deceit” (Works, vol. 1, p. 260, Letter 47), for they become participants in their ungodliness (Letter 56). However, the church of Christ is present not only in every Orthodox bishop but also in every Orthodox Christian; indeed, more so: every Orthodox layperson is themselves a church, as the holy Apostle Paul says: “Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (2 Corinthians 6:16, reading 182). Therefore, as laypeople and priests who separate from an Orthodox bishop are lost, so too are bishops who fall away from their Orthodox flock.

St. Gregory the Dialogist teaches: “Let us listen to what is said by the voice of the blessed Job: ‘If my land cries out against me, and all its furrows are wet with tears; if I have eaten its yield without payment’ (Job 31:38-39). For the land cries out against its master when the church justly rises against its shepherd” (Homily 17, Book 1, pp. 159-160). Elsewhere we read: “This, indeed, is to lay down one’s life for the sheep; the shepherd will rejoice and be glad at the Last Judgment over his sheep. He will rejoice if he finds them all sound, not fallen away; but if they have fallen away, he will be most severely punished. And if the shepherds themselves are found to have fallen away, what will they say to the Shepherd of the flock (Christ), for they have separated from the sheep! They will be found unfaithful; for it is unfaithful for a shepherd to abandon his sheep, especially if he suffers punishment for his lies” (Pandects of Ancient Writings, ch. 122).

Thus, even bishops are guilty and cease to contain the church within themselves if they fall away from their Orthodox Christian flock, which is the church of the living God. This is exactly what happened in Nikon’s time when bishops departed from the Orthodox Christians. Therefore, the statement you cited from St. Cyprian does not condemn the Old Ritualist church but rather justifies it. Instead, it condemns your church by showing that it has bishops who do not have the church, for they have departed from it through their heresies.

The expression from St. John Chrysostom that “the church cannot be without a bishop,” which you cited, does not prove that bishops cannot fall into heresy or that the church cannot temporarily exist without them. He said this in connection with his own exile from Constantinople, referring only to the church there and the circumstances that would inevitably follow his departure from the city—that is, that someone would be chosen and placed in his stead—and nothing more. To understand Chrysostom’s words correctly, let us read them in their context. Here they are:

He (John Chrysostom, upon being condemned to exile) said to them (the deaconesses), “Come here, daughters, and listen to me. I see now that my end is near, that I have completed my course, and I do not think that you will see my face again. But this is what I ask of you: do not allow anyone to separate you from the church as you are accustomed. And whoever is appointed in the church by necessity or by the counsel of all, obey him as you would me, for the church cannot be without a bishop, and thus you will receive grace from God” (Life of St. John Chrysostom, fol. 154 verso).

For greater clarity, let us provide this in Russian translation: He (Chrysostom) said to them (the deaconesses): “Come closer, my daughters, and listen carefully to me. Concerning myself, I feel that everything is finished; my path is complete; perhaps you will not see my face again. I give you just one request: let no one among you abandon the respect that is owed to the church. Whoever is elevated to this throne with the consent of all, without intrigue or ambition, will be my successor: obey him as you would me, for the church cannot remain without a bishop” (Saint John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia, by A. Thierry, p. 247).

Is there even a hint here of the false teaching that bishops cannot fall into heresy and that if they do, it is not they but Orthodox Christians who separate from them who lose grace simply for refusing to follow heretical bishops? No; St. John Chrysostom simply said that after him, a successor would be appointed to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople because such a great church as that of Constantinople cannot be left without a bishop—and nothing more. Why must this be so? Because without a bishop, the church would perish, vanish, cease to exist, and no longer be a church? Or because God would ensure that they have a worthy bishop? No—it’s simply because people would inevitably choose and appoint a replacement. But should they obey any bishop who is chosen and placed after Chrysostom, regardless of who and how? No; he advises obedience only to one “elevated by necessity or with the counsel of all,” meaning with general consent, without intrigue or ambition. If Chrysostom’s successor were not chosen in this way, he should not be obeyed, and the church, in that case, cannot have a bishop and may or even must remain without one.

This meaning is proven by what actually happened. When Chrysostom was exiled, Arsacius was elevated to the throne of the church of Constantinople, not by common consent, nor by necessity or the counsel of all, but by the decree of Empress Eudoxia, a determined and implacable enemy of St. John Chrysostom. Chrysostom’s followers, friends, and adherents, who had personally heard him say that they must submit and obey his successor and that the church cannot be without a bishop, did not obey this successor Arsacius; they broke off all communion with him, remained without a bishop, and thus proved that the church could and did exist without a bishop—the very church, in fact, about which Chrysostom had said it could not be without a bishop. And what happened? St. John Chrysostom not only did not rebuke his followers or accuse them of not fulfilling his instructions, but he also praised them with high commendations, speaking of them as follows: “Who would deny the title of martyrs to people who bear suffering to uphold the teachings of the church, comforting this holy mother in the distress of the weak who abandon her in such great numbers? One man fulfilling the will of God is worth more than ten thousand who transgress it” (Saint John Chrysostom and Eudoxia, by Thierry, p. 389).

Regarding his successor Arsacius, Chrysostom wrote: “I have heard of that lascivious Arsacius, whom the empress has seated upon my throne, who has gravely offended the brothers and the virgins unwilling to commune with him, and many died in prison for my sake. For he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who has taken on the appearance of a bishop, but is a fornicator. Just as a woman who joins herself to another while her husband lives is called an adulteress, so too is he an adulterer—not of the flesh, but of the spirit, for while I live, he has stolen my throne” (Margarit, Life of Chrysostom, fol. 199 verso, and Prolog, Jan. 27).

Therefore, according to Chrysostom’s teaching, those who did not obey his successor—even unto bloodshed—and continued their worship without a bishop, which supposedly the church could not be without, deserve to be called martyrs, upholding the teachings of the church by refusing to follow an unlawful bishop. And those who remained with Chrysostom’s successor, Arsacius, St. Chrysostom condemns as transgressors of God’s will, as people who renounce the Orthodox faith. Why? Because Arsacius unlawfully seized the episcopal throne and turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a spiritual adulterer. Therefore, those at fault were not the ones who refused to follow him and remained without a bishop, but rather those who stayed with him.

According to your logic, however, those who remained without a bishop were at fault, while those who were with a bishop were not. By your reasoning, the followers of Arsacius were blameless, while the followers of Chrysostom, including Chrysostom himself, were guilty for justifying those who remained without a bishop and did not follow his successor. This is the outcome of your teaching and the contradictions it leads to! We Old Ritualists, however, understand Chrysostom’s words as he himself understood them, and we observe them as his immediate followers did—believing that we should follow only lawful Orthodox bishops and not follow unlawful, heretical bishops under any circumstances. We do not follow them, recognizing, in agreement with Chrysostom, that the church at fault is not the one that refuses to follow heretical bishops and remains without a bishop, but rather the one that has heretical bishops. Therefore, the Old Ritualist church is not at fault; rather, it is your New Ritualist church that is.

New Ritualist: Chrysostom’s followers were not without a bishop. They had Chrysostom himself, who continued to lead them and sent them letters even while in exile. But your schismatic church had no bishop at all—there was not a single bishop among you. So this example does not apply to you.

Old Ritualist: First of all, the statement by Chrysostom that one should obey a bishop and that the church cannot be without him was not made in reference to himself but to his successor—the bishop who would take his place on the throne of the church in Constantinople. He was speaking about the duty to listen to that successor and that without him, the church could not be. Yet, Chrysostom’s followers did not listen to this bishop and thus remained without one. Therefore, if they, as you say, did not obey his successor and did not recognize him as their bishop, instead remaining under Chrysostom who was in exile, they are still guilty of violating Chrysostom’s statement that the church cannot be without a bishop, if it is interpreted as you understand it. Chrysostom did not say that he would continue as their bishop after his exile or that they should obey and be governed by him while he was banished; rather, he instructed them to obey whoever would be appointed after him, “for the church (of Constantinople) cannot remain without a bishop.”

Secondly, St. John Chrysostom taught that clergy and laypeople who did not submit to Bishop Arsacius should and were even required to hold services, pray, and govern themselves independently—without a bishop. Here is what he wrote to them: “If the bishop is not among his flock to guide them, let the sheep themselves take on the duties of a shepherd. The timid, who use this as a pretext (the lack of a bishop) to withdraw from gatherings, betray the duty of faith. Did Daniel and the captive Jews in Babylon need an altar, temple, or high priest to fulfill the law?” (St. John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia, p. 389). It is clear that the Orthodox Christians of the church in Constantinople, having broken communion with their local bishop, had no bishop to lead or govern them and thus had to take on pastoral duties and govern themselves without a bishop, for which Chrysostom likened them to Daniel and other pious Jews who were in captivity without a high priest. Those who refused to commune with them on the pretext that they did not have a bishop, Chrysostom directly called “traitors to the faith.” All this serves as a perfect justification for the Old Believer church, which, like the church of Constantinople, had no bishop for a time, so that the sheep were sometimes forced to take on the duties of a shepherd, governing themselves independently of bishops who had fallen away from Orthodoxy.

New Ritualist: When Chrysostom was in exile, and an unlawful bishop, Arsacius, was on the throne of Constantinople, there were lawful and Orthodox bishops in other places and lands. But from the time of Patriarch Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, you had no bishop anywhere. So, the example of the Constantinopolitan Christians who did not submit to Arsacius does not justify you at all.

Old Ritualist: On the contrary, this example completely justifies the Old Believers. If in those times, when there were many lawful and Orthodox bishops, St. John Chrysostom did not advise those Christians who lacked a bishop to submit to any other bishop but insisted that the sheep should take on the duties of a shepherd, and if the Orthodox who separated from their bishop Arsacius were right not to submit to any bishop and performed services with priests alone, without any episcopal oversight, leadership, or blessing, then how much more justified are the Old Believers, who acted similarly in a time when there were no Orthodox bishops anywhere. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that when Chrysostom said that the church could not remain without a bishop, he meant not other bishops in different lands, but specifically the one bishop in Constantinople, who was to be chosen as his successor. This is evident from Chrysostom’s own words we read earlier, which are so clearly about the church in Constantinople that even the historian Zachary Kopystensky interprets them this way. He says:

The divine Chrysostom, on his way to exile, said to his deaconesses, ‘Whoever is chosen (in my stead as bishop) without any self-seeking ambition, with the consent of all, submit to him as to me, John. For I know that the church cannot be without a bishop. If he had not been appointed in the capital, certainly another would have been placed in his stead, for the church of Constantinople could not be without a shepherd’ (Polynodiya, part 2, section 9, article 5; Russian Historical Library, vol. 4, book 1, pp. 744-745).

It is clear that Chrysostom’s statement, “the church cannot be without a bishop,” applies only to the church of Constantinople and to the specific bishop who was to succeed him. But when this successor turned out to be unworthy and unlawful, then the true Orthodox Christian church in Constantinople broke off all communion with him, thus remaining without a bishop, yet it was in no way deprived of Orthodoxy or of the qualities of the church of Christ. This fully justifies the Old Believer church, which was also without bishops for a time, precisely because those available were uncanonical and non-Orthodox.

New Ritualist: I agree that Chrysostom’s statement, “the church cannot be without a bishop,” pertains specifically to the local church of Constantinople. However, I believe it can also apply to the universal church. If the local church cannot be without a bishop, then even more so the universal church.

Old Ritualist: But this only further justifies the Old Believer church. If Chrysostom said that the church of Constantinople could not be without a bishop, yet this did not hold true because the church in the persons of Chrysostom’s followers and adherents remained without a bishop, as the one available was unworthy and unlawful—one whom the Orthodox did not obey—then if this statement is applied to the universal church, it also does not have to hold universally. It cannot be said that it was entirely unfulfilled regarding the church of Constantinople; the church indeed was not without a bishop, but this bishop was unworthy, a lawbreaker, with whom true Orthodox believers had no ecclesiastical communion and thus remained without a bishop. Therefore, if this statement is applied to the universal church, then after Nikon, bishops were indeed present, but they were unlawful—heretical bishops with whom true Orthodox believers were by no means required to have ecclesiastical communion and did not until their repentance.

Thus, Chrysostom’s statement that the church cannot remain without a bishop—just as it justified the Orthodox in the church of Constantinople who remained without a bishop with only priests—equally justifies the Old Believers who were in a similar situation for some time. This is, of course, if we interpret this statement within the context of his other words, rather than in isolation as you do, and understand it as those who followed it during Chrysostom’s time did, as he himself intended.

The words of Simeon of Thessalonica, stating that “without a bishop, neither priest, nor altar, nor ordination, nor holy chrism, nor even Christians,” also do not imply that bishops are incapable of falling into heresy or that if they do, the Orthodox Church, which does not follow them, loses its Orthodoxy and the faithful cease to be Christians. No, the words of the blessed Simeon merely indicate that the bishop performs, or rather, enables all actions in the church, including baptism, chrismation, and other sacraments, not by himself but through the priest and through holy chrism. Without his ordination and chrism, these sacraments cannot be performed. This is why he says, “without the bishop, there are no Christians.” If someone has received ordination as a priest from a bishop, then he is authorized, and even obligated, to perform baptism, chrismation, the Liturgy, and all other sacraments and services. With this, the presence of Christians, the church, and the salvation of the faithful are ensured.

To clarify that we are correctly interpreting the statement by Simeon of Thessalonica, let us read all of chapter 77, from which you have selectively taken some words to support your claim that bishops supposedly cannot fall into heresy, or if they do, that the Christians who do not follow them cease to be Christians. Let us also look at the preceding chapter, which provides context to chapter 77; this will make the intent of Blessed Simeon even clearer. Chapter 76 reads:

Thus, the bishop embraces the seven-fold ministry, corresponding to the divine acts: these are baptism, chrismation, the seal of the reader, ordination of the subdeacon, ordination of the deacon, priest, and bishop. In all of these, the bishop has the granting grace; that is why only one ordination and chrismation is performed by him, and in all things the bishop acts as God’s grace-filled representative, for he is the high priest and, through the priests and other clerics, performs the mysteries.

And chapter 77 continues:

For from the bishop alone comes chrism and ordination, and through these two (ordination and chrism) the bishop’s grace reaches all the mysteries. If a priest lacks ordination, he cannot perform any ministry or sacred act; ordination comes from the bishop, and thus the bishop’s power operates everywhere. Likewise, a priest cannot serve without an altar, which is consecrated with chrism; this chrism, too, is consecrated by the bishop. Therefore, apart from the bishop, there is no sacrifice, no priest, no altar, all of these being through the bishop. No one can baptize without ordination from the bishop, and no one can baptize without chrism from the bishop. In this way, the bishop’s grace operates in all the mysteries and, without him, there is no altar, no ordination, no holy chrism, no baptism, and, indeed, no Christians; through the bishop, true Christianity and all its mysteries come into being.

Is it not clear that Simeon’s statement, “without the bishop, there is no altar, no priest, etc.”, does not imply that bishops are incapable of heresy or that if they do fall, then it is not their fault but that the Orthodox, who maintain their faith, cease to be Christians for not following them? Blessed Simeon is only emphasizing that, through chrism and ordination, the bishop’s authority permeates every sacrament, with the episcopate—or episcopal grace—acting through the priest who received ordination and chrism. Consequently, if a priest conducts a sacrament or service, the bishop’s grace is indeed at work.

However, according to church rules (Canon 3 of the Third Ecumenical Council and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council), even if a bishop errs, priests still have the right, and indeed the obligation, to continue performing all the services entrusted to them. In such cases, their services are still recognized as lawful and effective, which means episcopal authority is active through them.

Thus, Simeon of Thessalonica’s teaching on the episcopate itself demonstrates that the Old Believer church, even in times without a bishop, maintained episcopal authority in all sacraments, as it continued to have holy chrism and priests ordained by bishops. According to the blessed Simeon’s teaching, “through these two: ordination and chrism, episcopal grace reaches and acts in all mysteries.”

If some Old Believer priests, ordained by bishops who had fallen into heresy, continued their ministry, we should remember that the holy councils make no distinction between a priest ordained by an Orthodox bishop and one ordained by a heretical bishop, provided that the latter returns to Orthodoxy. They grant such a priest the same rights and impose upon him the same obligations as those upon priests ordained by Orthodox bishops, as seen in Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 69 of the Council of Carthage, which confirm that clerics returning from heresy retain their office.

Therefore, the words of Simeon of Thessalonica, which you cited to condemn the Old Believer Church, do not only fail to condemn it but actually justify it, showing that it retained episcopal grace and authority in all its sacraments. This is because, in the priest’s sacramental acts, the episcopal authority is present. The Old Believer Church has always had priests, and thus, in all their sacramental acts as lawful and legitimate priests, episcopal authority was at work. Therefore, for one hundred and eighty years, we indeed had episcopal authority within all our sacraments and rites.

Furthermore, it should be noted that your own church interprets the words of Simeon of Thessalonica quite differently than you and your missionaries do. It acknowledges that Christians can exist without a bishop. This is demonstrated by its very actions since it has received Old Believers who come to it through only chrismation, not re-baptism. If your church regarded us as non-Christians, it would not receive us as Christians but would baptize us anew, as it would pagans or Muslims, according to the sacred canons. But instead, it receives Old Believers as Christians, albeit not belonging to it. Therefore, by calling us non-Christians, you are only accusing your own church.

The words you cited from Ignatius the God-Bearer—that those who are not with the bishop are not the field of Christ but the enemy’s seed and work for the devil—do not at all condemn the Old Believers. St. Ignatius spoke of the heretics of his time, in the second century, who rejected the entire hierarchical order of the church: bishops, priests, and deacons. History records this as follows: “Ignatius urges the Trallians (in his letter to them) to honor the bishop as they would Jesus Christ, the priestly rank as they would the apostolic assembly, and the deacons as servants of the church. The persistence with which the Antiochian hierarch (Ignatius) made these exhortations serves as evidence that heretics were trying to convince the faithful that the apostolic authority had not passed on to those now governing the church” (Church History by Vladimir Guetee, vol. 1, p. 382). But as is well known, the Old Believers have never held, nor do they hold, any such false teaching. Therefore, Ignatius’s words condemning heretics who rejected church hierarchy do not apply to them. If the Old Believers lacked a bishop, it was solely because bishops had fallen away from Orthodoxy. In this regard, the same St. Ignatius justifies them, saying: “Every person who has received the gift of reason from God will be judged if he follows an unworthy pastor and accepts false teaching as if it were true” (Letter to the Ephesians). Elsewhere he says, “One should not abandon the pious, nor join with the wicked” (Letter to the Philadelphians). Thus, those who disobey Orthodox bishops are as guilty as those who obey heretical ones. The Old Believer Church broke communion with bishops who had fallen into heresy, not with the Orthodox, and therefore, St. Ignatius’s teaching does not condemn it but rather justifies it.

If anything, his teaching condemns you, the New Ritualists, including the current fugitive priests and priestless groups. It accuses you of submitting to your heretical bishops rather than following the Orthodox hierarchy as it existed before Nikon, or even those Orthodox now within the Old Believer Church. Meanwhile, the priestless and fugitive priests merely separate from the heretical hierarchs of your church but do not follow the Orthodox hierarchs of the Belokrinitskaya Metropolia. In this way, the Old Believer Church, which possesses the Orthodox hierarchy of that Metropolia, fully follows the teachings of Ignatius the God-Bearer and the holy fathers on bishops, submitting to Orthodox bishops and not following heretical ones. In contrast, the priestless and fugitive priests only fulfill this teaching halfway—they separate from the heretical bishops of the New Ritualist Church but do not follow the Orthodox bishops of the Old Believer Church. As for you, New Ritualists, you fail to fulfill St. Ignatius’s teaching at all, acting entirely against it by submitting to heretical bishops and not associating with truly Orthodox bishops.

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.

On the Sacrament of Priesthood

New Ritualist: No matter what you say or how much you try to justify yourselves, your arguments do not convince me because you are attempting to prove that priesthood is not eternal. But can the priesthood be abolished, or the office of bishop come to an end? Can one agree with you that, after Nikon, the priesthood was abolished and only reappeared after one hundred eighty years? This is completely unacceptable. All holy and patristic writings testify that Christ’s priesthood is eternal. In the book attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, it says: “As He (Christ) Himself does not die, so also His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek does not cease, as it is written: ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’ Aaron’s high priesthood ceased as it was temporary, but Christ’s eternal priesthood rose up, having risen from the dead, He sanctified His apostles for this through ordination, which is by the laying on of hands” (p. 77). Blessed Theodoret, commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul: “For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” says: “Since God Himself appointed the priests under the Law, and after their cessation, appointed another in their place, it was necessary for the Apostle to say that the former were appointed by God without an oath, but in the appointment of This One, an oath was added. Therefore, do not think that this priesthood, like the former, will cease and be replaced by another. Such a supposition is rejected by the oath that was made” (his Works, part 7, p. 605).

Thus, Christ’s priesthood is eternal, not temporary, and therefore bishops cannot all fall into heresy; otherwise, the priesthood would cease, which is contrary to the teachings of the holy fathers. But throughout our conversation, you keep insisting that the priesthood can cease or be abolished.

Old Ritualist: Why do you speak falsely and slander me? At no point in our discussion have I said that the priesthood can cease or be abolished. I have only said and proven that bishops can fall into heresy, not that the priesthood can be abolished.

New Ritualist: But it is the same thing. If bishops fall into error, then the priesthood is destroyed.

Old Ritualist: Is it truly the same thing, whether it is a bishop or the priesthood itself? Is the priesthood merely the people who bear it, or is it, rather, a sacrament of the Church?

New Ritualist: Yes, the priesthood is the bishop, priest, and deacon.

Old Ritualist: But those are only degrees or ranks of the priesthood, not the priesthood itself. The priesthood itself is a sacrament of the Church. If we were to define the priesthood solely as the mentioned ranks of the hierarchy, then it would mean that there are not seven sacraments but six, or that those persons themselves are sacraments. If, however, the priesthood is an unrepeatable sacrament, which a person receives only once in their lifetime, then it can never be abolished, even if those who bear it err in some way. According to your teaching, however, that the priesthood is people, it would indeed have to be abolished if they fall. This is the impious notion you hold and wish to impose upon us.

New Ritualist: No, we also acknowledge that the priesthood is not people, but a sacrament of the Church. But this only further condemns your community. In it, there were not seven sacraments, but only six. The most essential sacrament—the priesthood—was absent, without which the other sacraments cannot exist and which only a bishop has the right to perform. For one hundred eighty years, your community had no bishop to administer this sacrament, and therefore had no priesthood during that time. It is written that if any church loses even one sacrament, it ceases to be an Orthodox Church.

Old Ritualist: And who receives and possesses the sacrament of priesthood?

New Ritualist: The bishop, priest, and deacon.

Old Ritualist: Exactly. Among the Old Ritualists, priests and deacons were always present, even when there were no bishops, which means that the sacrament of priesthood was always present.

New Ritualist: How so?

Old Ritualist: In this way: you yourself say that priests possess the sacrament of priesthood, and we have always had priests; therefore, we have always had the sacrament of priesthood.

New Ritualist: So, according to you, priests—that is, people—are the priesthood itself. But according to us, the sacrament of priesthood is the laying on of hands by the bishop with prayer upon the head of the one receiving the sacrament.

Old Ritualist: You misunderstand me. I did not say that the priest is the sacrament of priesthood itself, but only that he bears it within himself: the priest is the bearer of this sacrament, just as a baptized person is the bearer of the sacrament of baptism, though, of course, he himself is not baptism, but only possesses it within him.

To make this clearer for you, it is necessary to explain that the sacraments of the Church are divided into two types: repeatable and non-repeatable. For example, repentance and communion are repeatable sacraments: the more frequently a person receives them, the better for them. However, non-repeatable sacraments are received only once in a person’s life—no more. Such are baptism and priesthood. If anyone repeats them, that is, receives them more than once, they not only gain no benefit but incur great and severe condemnation. Why are these sacraments not repeated? Because they produce in the soul of the one who receives them an indelible and inalienable mark: it cannot be removed by sins or heresies. Thus, if someone is baptized, then even if they commit the gravest sins or fall into the most grievous heresies, the baptism remains upon them. Therefore, when they repent and turn back from the path of error, they do not need to be baptized again; repentance alone, established for such a case, is sufficient. The same is true for the priesthood: regardless of the sins or heresies into which the one who received it may fall, this sacrament is not removed from them. I will provide proofs for this a little later. The laying on of hands and prayer are not the priesthood itself, but only the means by which it is conferred and completed, as it is written in the Small Catechism:

Question: What is the matter or form of the mystery of priesthood?

Answer: The matter (substance) is the laying on of the hands of the bishop on the head of the one receiving holy orders. The completion is achieved by the prayer recited by the bishop while laying on hands, during which he says, The divine grace, and so forth.\footnote{The Small Catechism of the Orthodox Church. Independently published (Amazon Publishing), 2024, p.60*

Thus, the laying on of hands and the prayer are only the visible act and completion of the sacrament of priesthood, but not the sacrament itself. The sacrament of priesthood itself is what a person receives through this visible act and completion.

According to your view, this visible act and completion are the sacrament itself, and therefore, as soon as it is finished, the sacrament itself ceases to exist: it would be as though it disappeared, evaporated, and was abolished. But this is an obvious absurdity, similar to someone asserting that the construction of a building is the building itself; and as soon as the construction is finished, the building ceases to exist. In reality, it would be more accurate to say the opposite: while the building is being constructed, it is not yet fully a building, but once the construction is finished, the building exists. The same should be said of the sacrament of priesthood. When it is only being performed through ordination and prayers but is not yet completed, then the sacrament itself is not fully present. Once completed, however, the sacrament of priesthood exists upon the one who has received it and remains with them permanently, as it is written: The ordained are separated from the secular faithful, and this mark remains upon the soul forever, not removed either on earth or in heaven; therefore, it should never and must not be repeated, but given only once (Great Catechism, ch. 72, p. 357b). Remaining forever upon the one who has received it, the sacrament of priesthood, as it were, lives within them constantly. For this reason, as the Apostle Paul writes to his disciple Timothy, Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands (2 Timothy 1:6, reading 290); Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14, reading 285). Thus, according to apostolic teaching, the priesthood, as a gift of God, does not vanish upon its completion but abides, living continuously in the one who received it.

If we accept your opinion that the performance of the sacrament of priesthood is the sacrament itself, this not only contradicts apostolic and patristic teaching but also leads to many other absurdities and errors. If this sacrament is abolished once its performance ceases and does not remain forever upon the one who received it, then it would mean that your priests do not have the priesthood. They only had it upon them at the moment the sacrament was performed for them, but now they no longer possess it. What kind of priests are they, then, if they lack the priesthood? If, however, you recognize them as priests who bear the sacrament of priesthood, then you must also acknowledge that the Old Ritualist priests had it as well, and, therefore, that the sacrament of priesthood was always present in the Old Ritualist Church.

Additionally, I find it necessary to add that both in the ancient holy Church and in your own, the sacrament of priesthood has not always been and is not always continuously performed; there have undeniably been, and continue to be, significant periods of time during which it is not performed: thus, during such times, it is absent from your church as well. Not only the priesthood but other sacraments are not always performed constantly—they are not performed every minute, and there are undoubtedly periods of time during which not a single sacrament is performed, which would mean that at such times, your church loses all seven sacraments. According to your teaching, it would therefore cease to be the Church.

New Ritualist: Though the sacrament of priesthood is not performed constantly among us, there is always the possibility of performing it. We always have a bishop who is ready at any time to perform and bestow it upon those who require it. But for a span of one hundred eighty years, you did not perform the sacrament of priesthood because you had no bishop to perform it—there was no one to do it.

Old Ritualist: But this actually condemns you all the more while justifying us. If we are guilty of not performing this sacrament because we lacked the ability to do so, how much more are you guilty, who, though having the constant ability to perform it, choose not to. By this, you voluntarily deprive yourselves of the most important sacrament—the priesthood—leaving yourselves without it for certain periods of time, and therefore, according to your own view, also without the other sacraments. One who refrains from performing it out of necessity may have some justification, but one who willingly goes without it, as you do, has no justification whatsoever.

Moreover, there are certain times when a bishop does not have the right to perform the sacrament of priesthood. For example, during Great Lent, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. The holy fathers have explicitly forbidden serving the liturgy during this time, and therefore also performing the sacrament of priesthood, since it cannot be performed under any circumstance without the liturgy. Would you say that the holy fathers prohibited the existence of the sacrament of priesthood throughout Great Lent? And would you claim that the ancient holy Church did not possess it during that time, and neither does your New Ritualist Church? According to your teaching, that the sacrament of priesthood does not exist whenever it is not being performed, one would have to answer “yes” to all of this. But this is an obvious absurdity and error.

If the priesthood does not vanish when the act of its performance ceases but remains forever upon the one who has received it—a priest or a bishop—then it is clear that the Old Ritualist Church has always had this sacrament without interruption, since priests were always present in it. Furthermore, it must be noted that a priest, like a bishop, possesses not a part of the sacrament of priesthood but the entirety, as it is written in the Kormchaia: The priest differs from the bishop only in that he does not ordain, but he fully possesses the priesthood (ch. 36, p. 283b). Therefore, the Old Ritualist Church has always possessed the sacrament of priesthood, and thus all seven of the Church’s sacraments: it has not “lost” a single one of them.

On the Eternity of the Priesthood

New Ritualist: Let’s assume that your Church always had the sacrament of priesthood, even during the time when there were no bishops. Nevertheless, this does not prove that you believe in the eternity of the priesthood; therefore, you remain opposed to the teachings of Blessed Theodoret and the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem regarding the priesthood. Before Metropolitan Ambrose, your priests were not ordained within your own Church; you received them through the second rite from our Orthodox Church. Such actions show that you do not believe in the eternity of Christ’s priesthood.

Old Ritualist: On the contrary, this very fact proves that we do believe in the eternity of the priesthood. By receiving clergy from heresy in their existing rank, we demonstrate directly that the priesthood is eternal, not temporary, such that no hellish force—not sins nor heresies—can destroy, halt, or abolish it. Even if those who bear the priesthood, bishops or priests, stray into error, the priesthood itself, which they received from God through ordination, remains unaffected, undiminished, and indestructible; it abides eternally and unchangeably, as it is written in the Great Catechism: The ordained are separated in holiness from the secular faithful, and this mark remains upon their souls forever, unremovable on earth or in heaven (ch. 72, p. 357b). The ancient holy Church confirms the same, both in word and deed, teaching that the priesthood cannot be destroyed by the sins or heresies into which those who bear it, whether presbyters or bishops, may fall. Thus, St. John Chrysostom teaches, Not all whom God ordains, but He works through them all (2nd Homily on 2 Timothy). The notable interpreter of the canons, Valsamon, in his commentary on the 31st rule of the holy apostles, writes: Note that the current apostolic rule establishes that clergy may safely separate from their bishops if they convict them as impious or unjust. In other cases, even if the bishop or priest be the worst of all, none should separate from them; rather, one should believe that sanctification is granted even through the sinful priest or bishop, for, as Chrysostom says, `Not all whom God ordains, but He works through them all’ (Commentary on Apostolic Canons). Clearly, the priesthood is not destroyed by the sins of people.

That heresy also cannot destroy it is indisputably demonstrated by the entire ancient holy Church, which instructs us to receive bishops and priests coming from heresy in their ordained ranks. Among the many testimonies on this matter, I will mention a few. The First Ecumenical Council, in its 8th canon, decrees:

The heretics called Cathari, upon coming to the Catholic Church, should first confess that they are subject to the Church’s rules, and that they are willing to be received along with those who have married twice and those who have lapsed. If, therefore, there is a bishop in the city, a true bishop of that city, then let the one ordained by the Cathari remain in his rank as bishop or presbyter, but only let him hold the honor of being a presbyter, unless the bishop of the city should wish to assign him an episcopal role in a village, for it is not permitted to have two bishops in one city.

Commentary: Some heretics who come to the holy Church of God are baptized; others, however, are anointed only with chrism; still others, only renounce their own and all other heresies. The so-called Cathari, who were deceived into this heresy by Novatus, a presbyter of the Roman Church—hence their name ‘Cathari,’ as they reject penitents from the faith and prohibit second marriages—are, if they come to the holy Catholic Apostolic Church and confess acceptance of those who marry twice, no longer to reproach second marriages, to forgive sinners who repent, and, in general, to follow all the Church’s decrees. Such individuals, having renounced their heresy and all others, are accepted and anointed only with holy chrism. If any of them happen to be bishops, they are to remain in their office, provided no true bishop of the Catholic Church occupies that city. In that case, the original Orthodox bishop is to be honored, as he is the one rightful bishop on the episcopal throne. The one named bishop by the Cathari may be honored as a presbyter, for there cannot be two bishops in one city. Should the city’s bishop so wish, he may bestow upon him the title of bishop, although without performing any episcopal functions. Or he may appoint him as a bishop in a village (Kormchaia, p. 35b).

Similarly, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in its first session, devoted an entire assembly to resolving the issue of receiving clergy from heresy in their ordained ranks (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, session 1). Even the very practice of the Church, or Church life itself, affirms the teaching of the eternity and indestructibility of the priesthood, despite bishops remaining in heresy. The ancient holy Church accepted bishops ordained by heretics in their ranks. Thus, St. Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus, was accepted (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 113), as was St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch, who was ordained by Arians (ibid., p. 109), and many others.

To convince you further, let me present testimonies from the theology of your own Church, specifically from Metropolitan Macarius, which states: “The Church has always adhered to the rule: never, under any circumstances, to repeat ordination, just as it does not repeat baptism, provided both are performed correctly, even if within a non-Orthodox community. Therefore, ordination was not repeated even for clergy converting from certain schismatic sects, such as the Cathars (Novatians) and Donatists, and even today it is not repeated for those coming from the Roman Church (vol. 2, § 240). Another canonical book from your Church says: As baptism is singular and unrepeatable, so too is priesthood singular, and once conferred, it remains indelible in the one who receives it, just as ordination, once performed, is not repeated if performed correctly, even by non-Orthodox” (On the Acceptance of Schismatics into the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna, p. 20).

There are many more testimonies and proofs confirming the truth that the priesthood is by no means destroyed by a fall into heresy by those who bear it. But for the sake of brevity, I will limit myself to these. The Old Ritualist Church acts in accordance with this teaching and holds that Christ’s priesthood is eternal, such that it is not destroyed even if bishops or priests fall into heresy and remain there, and for this reason, it accepts clergy coming from heresy in their ordained ranks.

But you, New Ritualists, do not believe in the eternity of the priesthood. Tell me, why does your Church regard the Old Ritualist bishops and priests as mere laymen or impostors?

New Ritualist: Why do you ask this? It is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Old Ritualist: First answer the question, and then you will see whether it is relevant or not. To reproach a question without understanding its purpose is premature and unwise.

New Ritualist: If that’s the case, then here’s my answer. The Orthodox Church considers your so-called bishops and priests to be impostors because your first metropolitan—Ambrose, from whom they trace their ordination—separated from our Orthodox Church, fell into schism, and thus lost his rank, becoming a layman and impostor. Therefore, those ordained by him are likewise laymen.

Priestless Old Believer: It’s true that if a hierarch falls from the Orthodox Church into heresy, he loses his rank, and those he ordains become laymen. This is why we regard your bishops and priests as laypeople, for they trace their ordination back to bishops who fell into heresy under Nikon, thereby losing their rank. For this same reason, we consider the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy to be self-proclaimed, since it traces its origin to Ambrose, who was a metropolitan in your Church, making him a layman like all your hierarchs.

Old Ritualist: You both seem to agree remarkably well on the teaching about the priesthood. Both of you—the New Ritualists and the Priestless factions—equally believe, affirm, and teach that the priesthood is not eternal but temporary, lasting only as long as its bearer, a bishop or priest, remains in Orthodoxy. As soon as he falls into heresy, the priesthood is abolished, and he becomes a layman. Based on this belief, you New Ritualists reject the priesthood of the Old Ritualist hierarchy, and the Priestless factions reject the priesthood of your bishops and priests as well. Therefore, what you quoted from Cyril of Jerusalem and Blessed Theodoret concerning the eternity of Christ’s priesthood condemns both the Priestless factions and the New Ritualists, who together teach that heresy can annul the priesthood. But for us Old Ritualists, who accept the Christ-given priesthood, the teachings of the holy fathers on its eternity fully justify us. In accordance with them, we believe that the priesthood is eternal, indestructible by sins, heresies, or any such things.

New Ritualist: Even if the priesthood is eternal and cannot be destroyed by the sins or errors of its bearers, this still brings no benefit to the Church when they fall into error. What benefit is there from a bishop in heresy, even if he still possesses the priesthood? For the Church, it is as though he does not possess it at all. Is it not clear that heresies destroy the priesthood?

Old Ritualist: That would be true if the Church were not granted by God an exceedingly powerful remedy, effective not only against sins but also against heresies. This remedy is repentance, which is able to dissolve, eliminate, and erase all manner of sins and errors that people may fall into. Do you know the difference between the state of the Old Testament Church and that of the New Testament Church? Why did Adam, having committed a single transgression, find no way to erase or rise from his fall, despite every effort, while we fall and rise daily? Why did all the righteous of the Old Testament, regardless of their good deeds and merits, go to Hades, with none able to save themselves from it, whereas now anyone can reach the kingdom of heaven and attain eternal salvation and blessedness? It is because repentance, which was absent in the Old Testament, was granted in the New Testament through the suffering and blood of the Son of God. Repentance erases and annihilates only human sins and errors, but it in no way destroys any of God’s gifts or Church sacraments, including the sacrament of priesthood, provided it was received rightly. Blessed Augustine asserts, The Church stands only by repentance (On Faith, Hope, and Love, ch. 62). Indeed, Christ Himself began His preaching with words about repentance: Repent, He proclaimed, for the kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17, reading 8); Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15, reading 2). Thus, Christ’s priesthood is eternal and indestructible, impervious to sins or heresies, because the Church possesses repentance. Through this divine and saving means, a heretic can become Orthodox, and if he is a bishop or priest, he should remain in his rank, as shown by the evidence given above.

Does Deposition of Clergy Abolish the Priesthood?

New Ritualist: If, as you say, the priesthood is so eternal that nothing—neither sins nor heresies—can destroy it, then why are priests and bishops deposed or removed from office if they commit a crime? If the priesthood is truly indestructible, then there should be no need to prohibit or depose clergy when they are guilty. Since the holy fathers have decreed the deposition of the guilty, it is evident that the priesthood can indeed be abolished.

Old Ritualist: If the priesthood were destroyed by the deposition of a priest, it would mean it is not eternal, and then the Priestless factions would be right in having none of it. But all the holy fathers teach consistently that the priesthood is eternal; therefore, it is not destroyed by the deposition of a priest from office. For greater clarity, and to show how deposition does not negate the eternity of the priesthood, I’ll read from the work of Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna titled On the History of the Question of Receiving Schismatics into the Orthodox Church. In this work, after discussing the nature of the priesthood, it states: “Thus, according to these determinations, deposition does not take away or abolish the grace of the priesthood, whose creator is the Holy Spirit Himself; rather, it suspends and restricts its function, which St.@ Basil the Great refers to as removal from service in his 51st canon, for “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable,” as the Apostle says (Romans 11:29). The Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the voice of St.@ Tarasius, declares once more the truth of God’s voice, that the children shall not die for the sins of their fathers, and that ordination is from God” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7). The Donatists were solemnly condemned by two local councils: one held in Rome in 313, and another larger one in Arles in 314. When in 411 a multitude of bishops and laypeople from the Donatists reunited with the Catholic Church, the clergy retained their ranks. St.@ Basil the Great was so convinced that a properly conferred ordination should never be repeated that he disbelieved the rumor that the Arian bishop Eustathius of Sebaste had reordained some clergy and condemned him for such a bold and unprecedented act among heretics, if the report was indeed true and not slanderous. In his 51st canon, in line with canonical principles, he more precisely defines the concept of deposition, writing: The canons regarding clergy are set indiscriminately. They command a single penalty for the fallen: removal from service, whether they hold a rank of priesthood or serve in a role without priestly ordination.

Joseph Bryennius, in his second letter to the priest Niketas, writes: “Consider the Italian priests, and foremost their leader, as deposed by all the fathers; but as for the sacraments they performed, believe them to be holy and complete, just as the sacraments performed by deposed priests among us.” Likewise, the eminent Archbishop Eugene Bulgaris of Astrakhan, examining this question with his characteristic depth, writes:

Deposition is nothing other than removal from sacred service, and it is precisely for this reason that there exists a continuous and lifelong prohibition (i.e., for those who have committed crimes and are canonically barred from the priesthood), differing from suspension only in that the latter is imposed on offenders for a set time, after which they are reinstated, while deposition lasts for life without hope of reinstatement. However, this does not at all erase the priesthood itself; the priesthood remains indelible and, in essence, indestructible. Just as a suspended cleric, performing sacraments contrary to his penalty, incurs a greater penance for himself, yet the offerings he makes are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, even if all our priests, according to canonical decrees, were subject to deposition, we must honestly say that they bring upon themselves the severest punishment in the next life, but we do not believe that their actions leave the sacraments unsanctified by the Spirit; rather, we affirm that He sanctifies the sacraments and grants His grace to those who approach with reverence and faith. To doubt this, as Nicholas Cabasilas says (Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, ch. 46), would be to think that the priest controls the offering of these gifts. All of this is confirmed by the previously mentioned conciliar decision against Bishop Leontius of Balbus, through the Church’s acceptance of and recognition of the priesthood of bishops and other clergy ordained by the deposed Meletius and Peter Mongus, as well as the numerous examples of deposed bishops restored either to their own or other sees without reordination—a practice seen in the Church, not only in ancient and recent times but even in the most recent history.

Furthermore, it should be noted that during ordination, a sacred act takes place through which the gift of priesthood is conferred from above. Deposition, however, is not a sacrament but a simple administrative act that formalizes the removal from service and thereby suspends the performance of priestly duties based on the reasons listed in the act of deposition (On the History of the Question of Receiving Schismatics, pp. 17–20).

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.

The Authority of the Priest to Bind and Loose

New Ritualist: Let it be as you argue, that the priesthood is eternal and has always been with you. But there remain other very grave offenses on your part. Since before Ambrose you had only priests without a bishop, they performed the sacrament of penance, or confession. However, this sacrament can only be performed by a bishop. The Council of Carthage, in its 43rd canon, decreed: “The penitent, in opposition to his sins, is given penance by the bishop. A presbyter, however, without his consent, may not absolve a penitent even in cases of necessity.” The interpretation states: “The bishops, having received authority from God, are to bind and loose in accordance with the severity of the sins and the repentance of the penitent. The presbyter, without the bishop’s directive, cannot either increase or reduce the penance, nor can he absolve those under penance or impart divine gifts to them if the bishop is absent (Collection of Canons). The 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles decrees: ‘Presbyters or deacons must do nothing without the will of their bishop, for the Lord’s people are entrusted to him.’ The interpretation clarifies: ‘It is not fitting for a presbyter or deacon to bind or excommunicate, increase or reduce the penance, or do anything else of this nature without the bishop’s permission. And they cannot receive the penitent or bind or loose without written authorization from the bishop, for the Lord’s people are entrusted to him, and he will answer for their souls’ (Collection of Canons). But in your case, until Ambrose, only priests performed the sacrament of penance, binding and loosing, which they had no right to do, as priests do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which belong solely to bishops. Therefore, your community, without a bishop, did not possess these keys or the authority to bind and loose.

Old Ritualist: But is this truly so? Do priests, in fact, not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or the authority to bind and loose? Let us listen to what the Holy Fathers say on this matter. St. John Chrysostom, in his book On the Priesthood, teaches:

If anyone should think… of the great honor granted to priests by the grace of the Spirit. Living on earth and leading a life in it, they have been commanded to perform things of heaven and have received authority greater than that given to angels or archangels. For it was not said to them, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Those living on earth possess the authority to bind, but only over the body. This bond, however, touches the soul itself and passes beyond the heavens. What priests accomplish below, God above confirms, and the Lord affirms the counsel of His servant. And what greater power is there than this? He said, ‘Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ What authority could be greater than this? The Father entrusted all judgment to the Son, and I see the Son entrusting it all to them (Ch. 4).

In the book The Son of the Church, we read: “Great indeed is the rank of the priesthood; it is the apostolic inheritance, and for this reason, they are given authority over human souls by God, whom they may bind and loose” (Book called The Son of the Church). In On Faith, it is written: “The Pope of Rome is not Peter’s successor in all things, but only in this: to bind and loose, baptize, and teach, which every priest must also do” (Ch. 20, p. 183). In the Trebnik, in the order for the burial of priests, it is stated: “For the Lord said to His apostles: ‘Whomsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whomsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again, the same power and grace of the Holy Spirit was given by God to patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and all priests to bind and loose those who fall into sins (absolution prayer).”

St. John Chrysostom teaches: “The priest has exempted himself: he has no other life, but he lives in the church. Let them, he said, esteem them exceedingly in love for their work’s sake… For it is by them that you are born to eternal birth, and through them you obtain the kingdom. Through their hands, everything happens; through them, the gates of heaven are opened for you. (In the margin: ‘The priests have the keys, for they open the gates of heaven’). Let no one argue or quarrel. Whoever loves Christ will love the priest, for it is through him that he receives the dread mysteries” (Homilies on the Epistles, Homily 10 on the Epistle to the Thessalonians, p. 2288).

And yet, you assert without hesitation that priests do not have the authority to bind and loose, nor the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Does this not contradict the teaching of the Holy Fathers? Indeed, you not only contradict this teaching but also accuse your own church. You forget that in your church, most confessions are heard by priests, not bishops. Therefore, all your church’s followers are seeking forgiveness for sins from their priests in vain, as, according to your words, priests do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven or the authority to bind and loose. Consequently, all followers of your church remain without absolution and forgiveness of sins. Poor people! Poor church!

New Ritualist: But our priests receive authority to hear confessions by the will or command of their bishops. But your priests did this without the bishop’s will.

Old Ritualist: But that does not justify, but only accuses, your church. If your bishops command people who, by your account, lack this authority to bind and loose, they become transgressors of God’s commandments by allowing and even commanding your priests to seize what has not been given to them.

New Ritualist: No, – priests do have the authority to bind and loose, and thus the bishops allow them to do so.

Old Ritualist: If priests have the authority to bind and loose, then why do they need permission for it? Granting permission to someone who already has the authority to do something is, at the very least, strange.

New Ritualist: But this permission is not doctrinal; it is disciplinary, required only for order and propriety in the church.

Old Ritualist: Quite correct. But in the church, discipline – that is, the formal subordination of juniors to seniors – is to be upheld only when the latter remain in orthodoxy. Otherwise, established relations must necessarily change, and subordinates must correct the teachers of false doctrine (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 744), not submit to them or act at their will. In general, the Third Ecumenical Council decreed, “We decree that clergy who are of one mind with the Orthodox and universal council should never in any way be subject to those who have departed or are departing from Orthodoxy” (Canon 3 in the complete translation). The Seventh Ecumenical Council interpreted this decree to apply for all future times: “now or afterward, at any time whatsoever” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7; First Act).

How then can you demand that Old Believer priests be subordinate to the bishops who departed with Nikon, when the Holy Fathers strictly forbid this? The Holy Fathers rightly said, “Even what is good, if received out of due time, is turned to evil, not from its nature but from the indiscretion of the recipients. We therefore take heed that every scripture be received in its proper time, and not untimely” (The Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Word 2, p. 14).

New Ritualist: But I did not speak without basis; I cited the 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 43rd of the Council of Carthage, which require the subordination of priests to bishops, thus accusing your priests who were not subject to bishops.

Old Ritualist: But if one examines these canons impartially, they do not in any way accuse the Old Believer priests. The 39th apostolic canon speaks not of priests doing nothing without the will of any bishop, but only without the will of an Orthodox bishop. Since the time of Nikon until Metropolitan Ambrose, such bishops were absent; therefore, the Old Believer priests had no one to whom they could submit.

And a priest should only refrain from acting without the will of an Orthodox bishop if he is constantly with the bishop, not one who lives far from the bishop and therefore cannot seek permission for every act entrusted to his authority.

New Ritualist: But the canons are binding for all priests. Therefore, any priest, regardless of how far he is from his bishop, has no right to act without his will.

Old Ritualist: But is this practical in reality, and do your priests follow it? If, for example, one of your priests is five hundred versts away from his bishop and needs to celebrate the liturgy, is he required to travel to the bishop to ask permission? And after he returns and serves the liturgy, suppose someone then appears and asks to confess. According to your rule, the priest would again have to travel five hundred versts to seek permission to hear the confession. And this would have to happen always and without fail. Can you say that this makes any sense, or that your 39th apostolic canon is followed in this way, as you demand?

New Ritualist: No, – a priest does not need to travel to the bishop every time he needs permission to perform sacraments and mysteries. Instead, this permission is granted to him once and for all at his ordination. In the interpretation of the 39th apostolic canon, it is said that priests are not always required to act with the will of the bishop, but only if they do not receive a written directive from him. This written directive is the so-called ordination certificate given by bishops to presbyters, outlining the rights of the presbyterial office. It permits the presbyter to perform all church rites and to bind and loose the consciences of those confessing their sins prudently, while bringing only the more serious and complex cases to the bishop’s attention (Course on Ecclesiastical Law, vol. 1, note 248, p. 186). And as these certificates are issued at ordination for the priest’s lifetime, our priests act according to the bishop’s will without making the impractical journeys you describe.

Old Ritualist: All this is fine and reasonable. But what is an ordination certificate: a sacred object or something else? Please explain.

New Ritualist: It is simply a testimonial or proof of identity for the priest; in today’s terms, a “priestly passport.”

Old Ritualist: So then, the entire matter, the entire command of the bishop, and all your accusations against the Old Believer priests boil down to a matter of discipline and, ultimately, to a simple ordination certificate, a form of identification. But Old Believer priests had ordination certificates, and their identities were always verified; otherwise, the Old Believers would not have accepted them. As for discipline, or formal submission to bishops, as shown above, in the absence of Orthodox bishops, they had neither the ability nor the duty to observe it. This is also supported by the 43rd canon of the Council of Carthage, which you read in an abbreviated translation that does not fully express the canon’s meaning. In full translations, it reads as follows: “The period of penance for the penitent, according to the gravity of their sins, should be set by the judgment of bishops. However, a presbyter without the bishop’s consent may not absolve a penitent, except in cases of urgent need when the bishop is absent” (canon 52 in the full translation).

If a priest does not receive a penitent under the pretense that he lacks permission from the bishop, he bears grave responsibility. In the book Zonaras, Canons of the Holy Fathers, Apostles, and Councils, we read: “If someone is on their deathbed and calls a priest to confess, and the priest does not come, saying, ‘I have no permission from the bishop to receive children, I dare not do it,’ and if the person dies unconfessed, the priest bears the sin. For he did not heed the scripture that says, ‘Do not turn away one who comes to you or trouble his spirit.’ Foolish priest, you rightly say you lack permission, but for the sake of necessity, take in one who seeks you, for God’s sake. For this, let the priest repent for three years, standing with bows” (ch. 90, p. 6, second column). And the 52nd apostolic canon condemns such priests even more strictly, stating: “A hierarch, that is, a bishop or presbyter, who does not receive one turning from sin but instead rejects them, shall be deposed. The interpretation: Whoever does not receive a penitent turning from sin acts contrary to Christ our God. Acting contrary to Him and opposing His commandments, he is not His disciple. And if he is not His disciple, he is not worthy to serve Him. For how can he serve, having made himself antichrist and opposing the will of Christ? He shall be deposed” (Kormchaia).

Is it not clear that both the bishop and the priest not only have the right but are positively obligated to perform the sacrament of penance? Anyone acting otherwise becomes an antichrist. Yet you seek to make all priests into such, claiming that they have no right and therefore should not bind and loose. And all this—why? Merely to find any means to accuse the Old Believer Church, asserting that even with priests, it did not possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But, as shown, the Holy Fathers testify that priests also hold these keys, the authority to bind and loose.

Why Did the Old Believers Seek to Obtain an Orthodox Bishop?

New Ritualist: If priests have the same authority as bishops to bind and loose, if your community had the sacrament of priesthood even without a bishop, and if bishops can fall into heresy while the church, remaining without them, remains undefeated, then the question arises: why did you seek out Metropolitan Ambrose and establish an episcopate? Why not simply continue without a bishop?

Old Ritualist: The fall of bishops into heresy is the gravest evil for them—a misfortune that deprives them of eternal salvation and blessedness. Therefore, when the church leads them back to the Orthodox faith, it is merely putting an end to evil and doing good by saving souls. This aligns fully with God’s law. The apostle calls out: “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20, reading 57).

Moreover, we must note that the unfortunate and sorrowful state of the church being without bishops is an exceptional and temporary condition, not a permanent one. So, when we say that the church, holding the Orthodox faith in all things, is Orthodox even without bishops, we are not asserting that it should always remain without bishops, but rather affirming that if bishops fall into heresy while the priests and laity do not, it is only those bishops and their followers who are deprived of Orthodoxy, not the priests and faithful Christians who remain in the Orthodox faith. Undoubtedly, the church’s state without a bishop is, like any trial, a heavy and grievous affliction. And we must strive to ease and bring an end to the church’s afflictions.

Of course, the highest protector and savior of the church, as of every person, is God Himself, but nevertheless, we must pray for the church’s salvation and use the means prescribed in God’s law. In the Interpretive Gospel, we read:

We understand, brethren, that the church of Christ, like a ship, is found in the sea of this world in this life, having as its sailors the holy and faithful, who always have Christ present with them. However, fierce storms attack it, and countless waves of afflictions strike this holy ship; and like a tempest, countless woes and troubles arise, and the fury of evil spirits brings them even to mortal fear. Yet Christ remains together with those who know and believe in Him; He allows them to suffer many things, resembling one who appears to be sleeping. When at last the troubles and evils are beyond bearing, and those who sail can no longer endure the storm, then they must turn to the all-powerful and merciful Lord with fervent prayers and warm tears, crying out to Him and saying: ‘Arise, why sleepest thou, O Lord? Awake, and cast us not off forever. Why dost thou hide thy face and forget our affliction and oppression?’ God will soon arise, drive away all fear, rebuke the tempests, and transform their weeping into courage, bestowing peace, stillness, and safety. He will never forsake those who trust in Him. For He said through the prophet, ‘Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.’ For no one cherishes himself as much as God cherishes all of us. In countless ways, He works marvelously for our salvation, directing us by His providence to loving-kindness (23rd Sunday, p. 307–308).

We Old Believers follow this very course. When fierce storms and countless waves of affliction struck the Holy Church, when her enemies resolved to completely eliminate her priests, driving her to the brink of mortal terror, when Christ, dwelling with her, allowed her to suffer, seeming to sleep, and when the storm of persecution became unbearable, the Old Believers turned to the all-powerful and merciful Lord with fervent prayers and warm tears. Then God arose quickly, drove away all fear, rebuked the persecutors, transformed weeping into courage, and extended a refreshing, calm, and peaceful stillness, granting not only many priests but also bishops, when Metropolitan Ambrose turned to her.

New Ritualist: But why did you seek out this archbishop instead of waiting for him to come to you on his own?

Old Ritualist: Because that is how the ancient Holy Church acted and set an example for future generations. In the canons of the Holy Council of Carthage, we read:

Canon 69: “Those ordained by Donatus, even if they have repented at the Roman council, should not be accepted into the priesthood. But since it is good for all to be saved, let them be accepted for correction.”

Interpretation: “Thus, if the Donatists, having been ordained as bishops, deacons, or presbyters by their own leaders, approach the Orthodox faith, renounce their heresy, they may retain their rank, be reconciled, and become part of the universal church, as there was a great shortage of clergy in Africa.”

Canon 70: “It was pleasing to all to send messengers to preach peace and unity to the Donatists if they will turn to the Orthodox faith.”

Interpretation: “These holy fathers not only welcomed the Donatists who voluntarily came to the universal church but also sent envoys to plead and preach peace and unity to them from all churches, so that, having repented, they might join the Orthodox faith” (Collection of Canons, pp. 143).

Following this holy conciliar decree, the Old Believer Church also accepted hierarchs from heresy in their ranks, not only those who came of their own accord but also sent envoys or petitioners to them, asking and preaching that they return to the Orthodox faith. It was through this course of action that Metropolitan Ambrose turned to her. And by acting as the ancient Holy Church did toward erring clergy, the Old Believer Church is entirely justified.

Apostolic Succession

New Ritualist: Even if your so-called church was right when it was without a bishop from Nikon until Ambrose, your current Belokrinitskaya hierarchy is still wrong because it lacks an unbroken line of apostolic ordination. Metropolitan Ambrose, from whom it originates, was, by your own admission, a heretic of the second rank before joining you. Apostolic succession in ordination ends with such heretics; therefore, your hierarchy is illegitimate and self-proclaimed.

It is known that Christ the Lord, having founded His Holy Church on earth, established and granted it a sacred hierarchy consisting of three ranks: bishop, priest, and deacon. To ensure that these hierarchical ranks were not self-appointed but chosen and sent for this great and holy service, Christ established ordination, or the laying on of hands, by which these hierarchical ranks are produced and which only bishops have the right to perform. For clarity and easy understanding, the succession of ordination can be likened to the succession of the human race: just as all humans are descended from one Adam by birth, so all priests and bishops are descended from one Christ by ordination. And just as each of us could trace our lineage continuously back to Adam if we had accurate genealogical records, so too can each bishop trace his ordination lineage back to Christ.

Now, please show us the uninterrupted succession of ordination of your hierarchy through only Orthodox bishops, continuously from Christ to Metropolitan Ambrose.

Old Ritualist: First, you should fulfill this requirement yourselves, and then you may demand it from us. Show us the succession of ordination in your church’s hierarchy through only Orthodox bishops from Christ to the present day, and we will do the same.

New Ritualist: We have no need to prove the succession of ordination of our hierarchy, because it is universally known that it goes uninterrupted from Christ Himself, through only Orthodox bishops.

Old Ritualist: I do not know who “universally” knows this. But history attests quite the opposite—that it is impossible to trace the succession of ordination of your bishops through only Orthodox bishops continuously back to Christ, for it must inevitably pass through heretics.

New Ritualist: And what proof do you have for this?

Old Ritualist: There is a book titled The Historical List of Bishops and Later Patriarchs of the Holy and Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, from 36 A.D. to 1834. It provides an unbroken succession of hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople from the Apostle Andrew. Among these successors, there are many heretics among the patriarchs of Constantinople, from whom the Russian Church also received its ordination and hierarchy. For example, from 355 to 359, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the heretic Macedonius (a Pneumatomachian); from 360 to 371, the Arian Eudoxius; from 371 to 379, the Arian Demophilus, ordained by Arians. Thus, for a full twenty years, the Constantinopolitan throne was held by heretics in succession. Later, from 428 to 431, the heretic Nestorius held the office; from 449 to 458, Anatolius, who was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 113); in 491, Flavitas, a heretic; from 639 to 641, the Monothelite Pyrrhus; from 641 to 655, the heretic Paul; from 655 to 667, the heretic Peter (see year 678); from 667 to 669, Thomas, ordained by heretics; from 669 to 674, Constantine, also ordained by heretics (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 119); from 711 to 714, the Monothelite John; from 730 to 754, the Iconoclast Anastasius; from 766 to 780, Nicetas, also an Iconoclast; from 815 to 821, the Iconoclast Theodotus; from 821 to 832, the Iconoclast Antony; from 832 to 842, John VII, also an Iconoclast; and many others.

From this simple list of the patriarchs of Constantinople, it is evident that many of them were heretics or were ordained by heretics. These heretical hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople sometimes held the throne in succession for several years, as we see not only in the list provided but also in the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where we find the following. When the question of whether to accept those ordained by heretics in their ranks was discussed, the president of the council, His Holiness Patriarch Tarasius, said, “Many of those gathered at the holy Sixth Council were certainly ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, teachers of the Monothelite heresy, since they successively occupied the see of Constantinople, and only fifteen years passed between Peter, who was the last to occupy the Constantinopolitan see, and the Sixth Council. Even the archbishops Thomas, John, and Constantine, who held the see during this period, were ordained by the heretics mentioned above, yet this was not held against them. That heresy lasted for fifty years. But the fathers of the Sixth Council anathematized only those four, even though they themselves were ordained by them.” The holy council said, “This is evident” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 119). From this, it is clear that from Sergius, the heretical patriarch of Constantinople, to Thomas, heretics or those ordained by heretics held the Constantinopolitan throne continuously for fifty-seven years. And it was from this throne that, in 988, under Prince Vladimir, the Russian Church received its origin: it received baptism, ordination, and hierarchy.

Therefore, if ordination ceases with heretical bishops, then it ceased long before the baptism of Rus, and consequently, the ancient Russian Church itself received and held a discontinuous, invalid, and self-proclaimed ordination. And your New Ritualist church now has the same ordination, not that of Christ. This is your teaching, not ours, and this is where it leads you: according to your doctrine, which states that ordination ceases with heretics, you are obliged to admit that both the ancient Orthodox Church and your New Ritualist Church did not receive and do not hold a legitimate, uninterrupted succession of ordination. Or, if you abandon this view, you must recognize, in accordance with the teaching and practice of the ancient Orthodox Church, that apostolic succession does not cease or break even among heretical hierarchs. In this case, you must also recognize that the Old Believer Church holds an unbroken ordination, even if it passed for a time through heretical hierarchs.

New Ritualist: Why are you confusing me?! Well, let’s assume that at certain times in the Church of Constantinople, bishops were successively heretics for several years. History indeed proves this, and I will not argue against clear facts. But at the same time, in other parts of the universal church—such as in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, and elsewhere—there were many Orthodox bishops. Whereas you had none of these for a full 180 years. So, there was an unbroken succession of ordination there, but not with you. And therefore, your present Belokrinitskaya hierarchy did not receive nor possesses this succession.

Old Ritualist: Thank you. You have now admitted yourself that it is impossible for you to trace an unbroken line of ordination back to Christ through only Orthodox bishops. Yet you demand this of us.

New Ritualist: How have I agreed to that?

Old Ritualist: In this way: you know that our ancient Russian Orthodox Church, as well as your New Ritualist church, derived its hierarchy and ordination from the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

New Ritualist: I know that very well.

Old Ritualist: And yet, when it comes to them, you refuse to trace an unbroken line of ordination through only Orthodox bishops and instead turn in all directions—to Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, and so on. If you could trace this line of ordination through the Church of Constantinople alone, then why would you point to Alexandria, Rome, and other places? By pointing to these churches, you have admitted and confirmed that the Church of Constantinople did not have a continuous line of Orthodox bishops.

You yourself compared the succession of ordination to the lineage of the human race—that just as all people are descended from Adam by birth, so all priests and bishops are descended from Christ by ordination, and the laity by baptism. Just as anyone could trace their lineage back to Adam if they had accurate records of their ancestors, so any bishop can trace the lineage of his ordination continuously back to Christ. But tell me, can even a single person trace his genealogy back to Adam through only legitimate births?

New Ritualist: Of course not; no one can, because everyone, without a doubt, has many illegitimate ancestors. Even the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ includes many illegitimate births.

Old Ritualist: Exactly. Now the question is: does the lineage of the human race end with an illegitimate birth, making someone with illegitimate ancestors less human?

New Ritualist: Of course, it does not end.

Old Ritualist: In the same way, the succession of ordination is not interrupted when it passes through heretics of the second or third rank. But if there were someone foolish enough to claim that the succession of the human race ends with illegitimate birth, we would challenge them to trace their own lineage through only legitimate marriages and births; otherwise, they would have to consider themselves non-human. And if they replied, “Even though my ancestors were illegitimate, in other places there were legitimate marriages and births at that time,” what would you say to that? Is this an excuse, or does it only further accuse the one who answered in this way? The response would be, of course: we are not concerned with whether other people, unrelated to you, were legitimately born in other places. Show us that your own ancestors were legitimate. Only then would your answer be valid, and you would justify yourself.

The same applies to your position. You claim that apostolic succession ends with heretics of the second rank. Therefore, we require that you trace the succession of ordination of the bishops of your church solely through Orthodox bishops continuously back to Christ—and specifically through those from whom they received ordination, namely the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Instead, you point out that in Alexandria, Rome, and elsewhere, there were Orthodox bishops at the time when there were heretics in the Church of Constantinople. So we will respond to you in the same way as to the person mentioned above: what does it matter if there were Orthodox bishops from whom your bishops did not receive ordination? Show us that all your bishops’ predecessors in ordination were Orthodox. But this you do not show and cannot show, yet you demand it from us and reproach us for it. You point out the speck in our eye but do not notice the beam in your own.

To understand the matter properly and to gain a complete understanding of apostolic succession in the church, it is necessary to note that this succession has two aspects: one through ordination and the other through faith. Heretical bishops and priests may possess succession through ordination, but only Orthodox Christians possess succession through faith. St. Gregory the Theologian defines and explains this in his encomium to St. Athanasius the Great, saying, “He was raised to the throne of Mark (the evangelist), succeeding him not only in primacy but equally in piety. For although he was distant from him in the former, yet he was close in the latter. This is where true succession lies. For unity in faith makes them share the same throne, while division in faith sets them apart, and one succession is only in name, while the other is in reality” (Works, part 2, p. 182). Your bishops and priests have only the succession of ordination but not of faith. They hold to teachings and traditions not upheld by the entire Orthodox Church before Nikon, and thus cannot trace their succession in ordination back to Christ, not only through Orthodox bishops but even through those who are of like mind with them. Their succession can only be traced from the present back to Nikon, but no further. After all, which fully Orthodox bishops before Nikon held the beliefs they now hold? Who, for example, prayed with three fingers and cursed those who did not? It is clear that your bishops possess only apostolic succession in name, not in substance.

New Ritualist: That is not true—we can list those who were appointed as bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors down to us, as St. Irenaeus of Lyons attests (Book 3, Chapter 4).

Old Ritualist: And why do you not read further, where he says, “who taught nothing of the kind that these (heretics) now babble”?

But can you list a line of bishops, continuously, back to the apostles, who taught what your bishops now teach and held to what they now hold? Beyond Nikon and his associates, you cannot point to any such bishops. Therefore, the testimony you provided from St. Irenaeus does not justify you but rather condemns you. The words of St. Athanasius the Great apply precisely to the succession of your bishops: “Who will not condemn the levity of Acacius and Eudoxius (bishops), who, out of zeal and inclination towards the Arians, sacrifice the honor of their fathers (those of the First Ecumenical Council)? Or what assurance can there be in what they have done if they violate what was done by the fathers? Or why do they call them fathers and themselves their successors if they reject their decisions?” (Works, part 3, p. 121).

New Ritualist: And what will you say about the apostolic succession of your own community?

Old Ritualist: That it has always been with us, without interruption, even during the period without bishops from Nikon to Metropolitan Ambrose. It is known that we had priests continuously during that time. Apostolic succession in faith and ordination belongs not only to bishops but also to priests. In the book On Faith, we read: “For each bishop has deputies whom he himself consecrated. Many received this grace of ordination from the blessed Peter and are his deputies, and each presbyter is a deputy of the apostle from whom he received the blessing of the priesthood” (ch. 20, p. 182). In the Kormchaia we find: “David said, ‘Thy priests shall be clothed with righteousness, and in place of thy fathers shall be thy sons, whom thou shalt make princes over all the earth.’ For in place of Abraham’s children He appointed the apostles, and in place of the apostles, the holy fathers, archbishops, and priests” (ch. 57, p. 595). In the book Son of the Church, it is written: “Great indeed is the rank of the priesthood; it is the apostolic inheritance”. Thus, the Old Believer Church, even during the time without bishops, having held the Orthodox faith and retained priests, always had deputies or successors of the apostles, and therefore always has had and still has apostolic succession, not only in name but in substance, not only through ordination but also through faith. Your church does not possess such succession.

In general, it is necessary to note that concerning the succession of ordination, we must follow the teachings of the Holy Fathers. That is, even if a minister was ordained by a heretic but is himself not a heretic, he should be accepted in his rank (see above). By following this practice, the Old Believer Church and hierarchy are entirely justified. Those who accuse them, as the proverb says, spit against the sun and only end up spitting on themselves.

And indeed, you sought to prove, for example, that the Old Believer Church does not have an unbroken succession from the apostles, yet it turns out that it does, whereas your so-called Orthodox Church lacks such succession, especially in the succession of faith, since it contains many errors. Your church also cannot prove an unbroken succession of ordination because, by its own Luciferian heresy, it denies the ordination of heretical bishops. Without solely Orthodox bishops, it is impossible to trace such succession. In light of this, instead of devising empty accusations against the Old Believer Church, you would do better to address the real errors and mistakes of your church, which are countless.

New Ritualist: We will discuss this another time. But now it is time to end our conversation. Just as a parting thought, I’ll tell you openly that no matter how you defend yourselves or accuse us, we will defeat you. We now have a great force—missionaries, who will inevitably overcome you. If not by words, then by actions; they will bring serious accusations against you, take you to court, throw you in prison, exile you, or even send you to hard labor if you do not accept Orthodoxy. They have already dealt with many of your brethren in this way.

Old Ritualist: Is that so! You boast that your missionaries are capable of doing evil. But even serpents can do evil, and demons even more so. Therefore, your threats are in vain. Neither your promises nor your threats can shake a believing soul. There are promises and threats infinitely stronger and more terrifying than yours. “He that overcometh shall inherit all things,” says the Lord, “and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:7-8).

The interlocutors parted, and the conversation ended.

1. Usov refers to the system of liturgical readings rather than chapter and verses. This numbering system can be found in any liturgical Gospel or Apostle. ↩︎

source