On relations with heretics, judged and unjudged

Epistle 40 of St. Theodore the Studite to St. Naukratios the Studite

 

Once again you are in prison, beloved son, but this is once again a disgrace for the dishonorable heretics, and for you – an increase of heavenly rewards and honors. Therefore, I sigh and weep for them, but for you I rejoice and give thanks. Are you not becoming more proven by this second imprisonment, like gold twice burned in the furnace? Be strengthened, then, my holy son, and appear before the Master Lord in all purity and blamelessness, “a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21).

Endure with long-suffering the strangeness of your second guard (I will not say—abbot or priest: for no servant of God or monk would serve in military matters, or even associate with such a servant thereof). Nevertheless, inform me how he treats you, for I think he is better than the former.

But in any case, you, my son, stand bravely, lightening sorrows with joyful hopes and making use of solitude to acquire dispassion by turning your gaze toward God alone, who looks upon you, and by constant union with Him, rejecting with contempt the base thoughts brought forth by the sower of tares.

As for your desire that I respond in detail concerning heresies and baptisms, this exceeds the scope of a letter, and moreover, it would be superfluous to expand upon that which the God-bearing Epiphanius has investigated and described as none of the Fathers has. Therefore, read his sacred book on the matter, and from it you will learn what you wish to know. The good Euprepian will deliver it to you.

I shall reply briefly concerning those being baptized. The judgment regarding them is threefold. The Marcionites, the Tascodrugites, the Manicheans, and those like them up to the Melchisedekians—altogether twenty-five heresies—are baptized. [1] The Quartodecimans, Novatians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists—five in total—are anointed with holy chrism. The Meletians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and those like them up to the present heresy are neither baptized nor anointed, but only anathematize their own and every other heresy. I do not specify their number now, because the heresy of the Acephaloi has split into many factions, and the letter would become too lengthy.

As for what you said, that the canon makes no distinction but clearly states that those ordained or baptized by heretics cannot be either clergy or faithful—take into consideration that the Apostolic Canon calls heretics those who are not baptized and do not baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

This we also learn from the divine words of St. Basil the Great. He says that "heresies are those who have completely severed themselves and become alien in the very matter of faith; schisms are those who, for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions subject to correction, have disagreements among themselves; and unlawful gatherings are assemblies formed by disobedient presbyters, or bishops, or by ignorant laity."

He himself, giving an example of the first category, says to Saint Amphilochius: “What reason is there to accept the baptism of those (the Pepuzians) who baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? Those are not baptized who have been baptized into that which has not been handed down to us.” Therefore, the canon and the Fathers, as the divine Basil says, have called them and those like them heretics. Then Saint Basil gives an example of the second category: “The Cathari belong to the number of schismatics.” [2]

But if you ask why both these and all the subsequent ones are called heretics, then we say and understand it thus: the first are heretics in the proper sense, because they impiously teach concerning the very essence of our faith in the Trinity. The second are called heretics by abuse of the term and because they derive from the first. They confess both the faith and Baptism in the Trinity, preserving the distinct property of each Hypostasis, and not merely one common to the Three, though in other matters they teach heretically. An example of the third is likewise brought by the holy father himself: “For instance, if someone, having been convicted of a sin, was removed from sacred ministry and did not submit to the canons, but usurped for himself presidency and sacred service.” Just as the second are called by the same name as the first, so the third are named as the second. Thus, the Meletians, whom the schismatic Meletius led astray, are called schismatics by the ancients, though they do not adhere to false doctrine; for they, anathematizing their own schism, as is said, were received by the Catholic Church. In general, heresies are like a kind of chain, woven by the devil: they are linked to one another and all depend on one head—impiety and godlessness—though they differ in name, in time, place, number, quality, strength, and activity. Just so, one and the same body consists not of one member only, but of many; and their actions toward each other, their powers, properties, relations, and significances are diverse.

Concerning your other questions. To the first—about an Orthodox presbyter who, out of fear of persecution, commemorates a heretical bishop—I have already answered you before and will say again: if he does not concelebrate with the heretic and has no communion with such men, he should be received into fellowship at psalmody and at the blessing of meals, and that by economia, but not at Divine Communion. When heresy prevails, it is absolutely necessary to make inquiry, and having received a confession of faith, to be satisfied with it—provided that it is not clearly false. For I can tell you that we have learned from the Fathers not to inquire in a time when heresy does not rage, and not to inquire concerning persons who have not been openly condemned. But now, it is rare to find such a presbyter who has not had dealings and communion with heretics.

The second question—about a man who loves Christ and invites you to serve an all-night vigil in his chapel: should one serve there, and with whom? One should agree, and go, and chant together—of course, if the one inviting and the chanters are Orthodox, and both he and they avoid communion with heretics. One should also serve in the chapel, if the owner can reliably prove that a heretic has never served in it. For it has already been said that, because of the raging of heresy, inquiry must be made everywhere.

Third: if any of the Orthodox should receive a church from someone, and it turns out that there is a custom there for the people to gather once or twice a year and during the Liturgy commemorate a heretic, then it may be allowed, out of necessity, to chant there, but not to serve the Liturgy. But if it is possible to put an end to that custom, then the Liturgy should also be served.

Fourth: if one encounters a church in which the one serving commemorates a heretic, and an Orthodox priest has a consecrated Table of Oblation on an epitaphion or on boards, is it permitted to set it up in the same church in the absence of the one commemorating and serve upon it as an Orthodox? It is not proper, but rather, out of necessity, it is better to serve in an ordinary house, choosing some clean place.

Fifth: if, while on a journey, an Orthodox Christian happens to be invited by some priest or layman to a common meal, and it is a time of chanting, how should he act? I have said and will say again: when heresy is dominant and has not been struck down by an Orthodox council, it is necessary to make inquiry—both regarding Divine Communion and regarding the common meal—and in this matter there is no place for either shame or delay. To receive simply bread from someone requires no investigation, just as to accept a treat from him, perhaps in private, or to obtain lodging—of course, in the case where he was not previously known for heresy or moral corruption. But regarding other things, investigation is required out of necessity.

Sixth: if an Orthodox person on the road encounters a church near a village or city, should he pray there or even stop, avoiding entering under the roof of laypeople? He should both pray and stop, if it is the only one. But also in the house of a layman or in the house of a priest—it is the same, as was said—out of necessity due to the lateness of the hour, one may stop and partake of food in private without investigation and receive what is needed (if, as I said, the one receiving was not previously known to the one being received as belonging to the number of the impious or lawless). But without necessity, it is not good to accept what was mentioned indiscriminately, but one should inquire and stay with an Orthodox person and, if needed, receive from him what is necessary for the journey; for thus does the Lord command through His saints.

You answered well to the presbyter and the abbot, that those are excluded from sacred ministry who are now ordained by a bishop who has turned out to be a heretic, even if he says that the council was evil and that we have perished. For why, if he acknowledges this, does he not flee from perdition by avoiding the heresy, so that he may be a bishop of God? Then his ordinations would immediately be accepted. Or why, during the reign of heresy, did the abbot send brethren for a heretical ordination?

Therefore, if the one who ordained were corrected, then those ordained by him could at once serve liturgically; but since he remains in heresy, commemorating a heretic, then even if he claims to have a sound mind, it is impossible for those ordained by him to be true ministers of God. But if in the abbot there is enkindled the spirit of zeal for God, and he desires to receive the crown of confession, then let him neither serve in the church where that one presides, nor commemorate him as a bishop. Blessed shall he be, becoming an example of salvation for many others.

But when an Altar of Oblation is placed in that same church, there is no obstacle to serving there. What I forgot to note earlier, I shall remind here. When Saint Basil speaks concerning those who have participated in unlawful gatherings, that sometimes even those who hold ecclesiastical rank and have withdrawn with the disobedient, if they repent, are received back into the same rank—let not your piety think that these words contradict the Apostolic Canon, which states: “If anyone of the clergy shall pray with one who is deposed, as with a clergyman, let him also be deposed” (Canon 11). [3] Remember that just as the Fathers have established a distinction between heresies and schisms, so also, following the sequence of thought, there is a distinction as to whom the canon that deposes irrevocably applies—namely, to one who prays together with the deposed, not to one who has participated in an unlawful gathering. For the former knows that he is praying with one who has been manifestly deposed, and is therefore justly deposed at once, as one disobedient to the canon; but the latter, as one who did not consider deposed the person to whom he was drawn along by the crowd: “if he repents, he is received back into the same rank,” says the holy father.

In the words of the saint, it is also often repeated that even the one who has repented is not received back into the same rank. [4] Moreover, these words are spoken conditionally; whereas the Apostolic Canon speaks firmly and unconditionally.

As for the falsely named Christophoros [5] having returned again “to his own vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22), I was not at all surprised, knowing his instability and inconstancy. But that Klidonios endured imprisonment and scourging from the ungodly for the sake of the truth only for one day—this greatly surprised me. Since until now he had stood firm by the power of God, it would not be amiss for you and the other brethren to extend a helping hand to him, if possible.

As for the aforementioned—that is, those who are baptized, those anointed with holy chrism, and those who anathematize heresy—I did not write according to the manner in which the divine Epiphanius classified and enumerated the heresies, but as I found in the interpretation of one of the most ancient and diligent men, who made an investigation and extract from the books of the Byzantine Church.

Brother Gregory sincerely greets you.

 

Notes

1. That is, they are baptized upon conversion to the Orthodox faith. Apostolic Canon 49.

2. To Amphilochius. Canon 1. Works in Russian translation, Vol. VII, pp. 6–7. Moscow, 1892.

3. Apostolic Canon 2.

4. To Amphilochius. Canons 32 and 51. Works in Russian translation, Vol. VII, pp. 48 and 99. Moscow, 1892.

5. Christophoros (Greek) – bearer of Christ.

 

Translated from the Russian edition: Послания, Venerable Theodore the Studite, St. Ignaty of Stavropol Publishing House, 2003.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feodor_Studit/poslania/40