The Church of Christ Temporarily Without a Bishop
Against the Old Believer Church, one encounters two typical objections from the Nikonians that can be debated. The first, and more commonly offered by those who are not familiar with the Schism itself, is that the Church is permitted to and has on certain ocassions, altered its traditions. The second argument claims that in losing the episcopacy for 180 years, the Old Believers lost the Church, for without bishops, there can be no Church. This argument is the more prominent one given by those familiar with the Schism, and is a more nuanced argument. This book, written by Metropolitan Innokenty Usov, prior to becoming a bishop, outlines the many kinds of arguments offered in this objection, as experienced in the many debates with Nikonian missionaries that he himself participated in.
The format of the “debate” in the book is not meant to be impartial, and offers the Nikonian positions, while crafting the dialogue in a manner that is meant to convey the Old Believer’s apology. There are a few instances where the teachings in this book apply to priestless Old Believer arguments, but the vast majority of the content is directed toward Nikonian objections.
I would also note that many of the notions offered herein as Nikonian positions are still implied by the likes of bishops of Constantinople and others to justify their own innovations even today, claiming that the veracity and goodness of their notions is justified by the dignity of their office. When such abuses are presented, traditionalist Nikonians will often take shelter in these “Old Believer” defences. Here are three excerpts:
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).
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.
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 (\textit{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.