Letter 49: St Theodore the Studite to (St.) Naukratios

 St. Theodore the Studite (+826)

Letter 49. To [St.] Naukratios, my son

(Written in A.D. 809)

You never speak, nor have you ever spoken to me, my beloved son, of anything superfluous and empty, but always of something timely, proper, and leading to spiritual benefit, as you do now. I, praising your zeal, recognize the continually improving form of your speech, which you will further enhance if you are able to engage in grammar. Indeed, one who defends Orthodoxy and desires to fight against false teachers must possess both the power and the skill of speech. For if they, with such knowledge, imagine themselves to have something great, and boast when they delight those who seek only what is pleasant to the ear, then it is fitting that the Orthodox should not lack in the power of speech to overthrow their destructive tools. Therefore, it pleases me, my son, that you are strengthening yourself in this. However, what I desire for you is not for everyone in general, because each person has their own abilities and is useful in their own way.

You say that brothers Philip and Philon have passed away, and it is good that both had a blessed end, not because their deeds before their death were disapproved of—how could that be said when they renounced the world, the flesh, and blood, and took upon themselves the good yoke of obedience—but because they were deemed worthy of the highest bliss, being persecuted, grieved, and oppressed for the sake of the Lord. No one would argue against this except dishonorable adulterers who have violated the Gospel. It is fitting to limit the praise of Philon to this; as for the good Philip, he has many virtues, which you yourself have previously enumerated. As for me, in addition to what has been said, I marvel at his simplicity and sincerity, his gentleness and lack of resentment, his compassion and brotherly love, his obedience and humility, in short—his dispassion, from which arose both his brokenness of spirit, his rejection of the world, his love for God, and his modesty. Add to this, as you have previously mentioned, this man’s frequent tears, his love for his father, his willing obedience, his courage and zeal in dangers, his complete lack of complaint, and, as if, the constant fragrance of virtues from his soul, which blossomed in many colors.

Valiant and steadfast is Gaian, who has traveled through almost all the places where the brethren are scattered. For their health—thanks be to the Lord God; for the fact that they do not fall in their afflictions, but are strengthened even more—glory to Christ, who strengthens them. But that they endure persecution, not even being granted shelter by some monks, especially by all those who have conspired together in this—do not be surprised. It is written: "a man’s enemies will be those of his own household" (Matt. 10:36). Did they not, the unfortunate ones, persecute Christ Himself, our God, who said this? Thus speaks the son of thunder: "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11).

Where, then, is the difference, if those did not receive Christ, the Redeemer of the world, and these do not receive those who have suffered persecution and imprisonment for Him and for His Gospel? None, except for the act of crucifixion and killing. May this alliance of unrighteousness not be counted against them! As you said, these people, unable to bear objections from those under their authority and not desiring the light of truth to shine upon them but wishing to remain in the darkness of ignorance, expel our brethren so that the holy word of truth and righteousness does not reach their ears—that is, so it does not serve as a reminder. But it will not be so; their counsel will not stand, and the word of God, which they have trampled upon, will be proclaimed and will stand firm forever. For "heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will by no means pass away" (Luke 21:33), He says. Who, then, can oppose this except for the tormentor Satan and his disciples, who have accepted adultery as a salvific economy for the Church of Christ, the foolish and most hostile?

However, it is necessary to return to your questions. You ask why the divine Cyril of Alexandria exercised economia, allowing communion with those in the East who commemorated the heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia in the diptychs. It was because the doctrines of piety were preserved by them in a completely uncorrupted and proper form. This is written by the holy Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who mentions this in his work "On Economia," the use of which we have explained in a separate treatise composed by us, "On Economia in General." Therefore, the explanation is provided by the one who recounted this. Nowhere else is this mentioned, and there is no need to seek another source. But to clarify, I will cite here what we have said on this same subject.

Some adaptations to circumstances were allowed by the Fathers for a time, while others have permanent force. For example, the permission given by St. Athanasius to the Italians to use the expression "πρόσωπα" (persons) instead of "ὑποστάσεις" (hypostases) when referring to the Persons of the Holy Trinity has permanent force. However, some were temporary, such as the Apostle's directive concerning circumcision, or Basil the Great's instruction regarding the Holy Spirit, or the current one from the divine Cyril. That which was allowed for a certain time is not subject to discussion, and is neither strange nor unlawful, but only evasive and not entirely precise. This is a temporary economia. For it is impossible for a doctor to immediately heal a patient from illness, or for even the most experienced person to immediately make a wild horse obedient to the bridle or a dry branch whole again, but only gradually—using both approval and kind words, as well as gentle treatment.

This is how the saints acted in their use of economia, and so did the great Cyril in the present case. He showed some leniency toward the Easterners' slowness in reasoning and their inclination not to recognize as a heretic someone who truly was a heretic. For how else could he have acted, when they confessed the Orthodox faith and, by doing so, anathematized the one whom they commemorated? For anyone who is completely Orthodox, by their actions, if not by their words, anathematizes every heretic. And later, when their understanding was fully awakened, then the saint, perhaps, agreed with them in all things.

Do we not do the same thing openly? It happens that some who are in agreement with us differ from us in something that causes little harm or deviation from precision. However, we maintain communion with them, so that for the sake of a small thing, which can be corrected after a short time, we do not lose everything; this would be characteristic of inexperienced people, not of the builders of the Mysteries of God.

Such is the temporary adaptation to words and customs in judgment, truth, and law, but by no means in lawlessness and falsehood. Let the adulterers not abuse expressions here, let them not call a guide the one who leads into the abyss, nor a helmsman the one who sinks, nor a physician the one who causes diseases, to whom they themselves have become similar, being united with the adulterer, joining adulterers with the one who united them, slandering God together with the one who slandered God, violating the Gospel together with the one who violated the Gospel, like dogs (if this can be more accurately expressed). As for Dioscorus, the Alexandrian heretic, where and in what manner did the divine Cyril receive him, as the adulterers claim, who dwell in darkness near the light and slander the saints? This is unheard of, and their lie is implausible, for he lived later than the divine Cyril. How, then, could the saint, who was already above the world, receive one who became a heretic after his death, during the Robber Council of Ephesus, after the Third Holy Council? Thus, they lie, fabricating fables to ensnare the souls of simple people.

Therefore, be skillful and knowledgeable in everything, so that you may avoid the serpent and those who speak with the serpent's voice, by whom many have perished from generation to generation.

Regarding other questions. If a bishop did not attend the adulterous council and calls it a false assembly but commemorates his metropolitan who participated in it, should one have communion with the presbyter of such an Orthodox bishop? To this, I have responded in another letter to Evodius, that one should, according to economia, as long as he has not served with heretics. For when the bishop who is being commemorated is Orthodox, it does not matter if he commemorates his heretical metropolitan out of fear of him. When such a presbyter invites you to a vigil, you should go, and when he offers the church, you should accept it, and when he himself enters it to serve, you should allow it. If it is to commemorate a departed soul (only an Orthodox one), you should permit it, and when he takes up serving in it, you should not hinder him. However, if he commemorates a heretical bishop, even if he praises or personally thinks Orthodox, you should abstain from Divine communion with him and from a shared meal if, in doing so, he commemorates that person. You may engage in communion with him in blessings and psalmody only if he does not perform priestly services with a heretic—whether his own bishop or any other—or does not knowingly have communion with him.

If someone partakes of a meal with the one who united adulterers or with another heretic, regardless of who it is, one should not share a meal with such individuals, even if they pretend to be Orthodox. For they do not observe the commandment of the Apostle, who instructs, "with such a person not even to eat" (1 Cor. 5:11). Furthermore, there is no need to investigate or inquire whether someone has feasted with another who has dined with a heretic, and that person with another, and thus divert the conversation from the direct path and avoid everyone. This is a matter of personal discretion, not of the saints. For it is written, "Thus far you may come, but no farther" (Job 38:11). Could they not have investigated this and passed it down to us? But no. Therefore, it is not good to transgress the boundaries "which our fathers have set" (Prov. 22:28). From those with whom we do not share a meal, we should not accept gifts either, if, after being admonished once or twice, they do not heed or obey us. I do not know whether it is permissible to accept what is offered by the guards—not as a blessing, but as a necessity—only on account of economia. From others, as long as they avoid indiscriminately feasting with heretics, if some necessity arises, I do not know whether it is also permissible to accept and share a meal with them. As for giving food and drink to such guards, it is undoubtedly necessary, for we must provide for every person. But as for our presbyter serving in the church of Lord Grigory, our son, I do not dare say, because it was opened after the adulterous council and consecrated by the first of the adulterers, who served and continues to serve together with the one who united them.

Translated from Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feodor_Studit/poslania/49