St. Theodore the Studite on the Priesthood of Accused yet Uncondemned Heretics

Epistle 53: To Stephen the Reader and those with him

(Written in 809 A.D.)

I received the letter from your zealously God-loving affection, which was sent—judging by the signature—by one person, but in meaning by several. But whether questioned by one or by many, I am obliged to give a satisfactory answer, insofar as this is possible for my ignorance. First of all, the praises with which your much-speaking tongue has exalted me do not pertain to me, for I am a sinner and lead a life that is not corrected. And if there is anything in me, it is a gift of God, granted through the prayers of the father who spiritually begot me, and which for the time to come may be preserved unharmed through your prayers, lovers of piety.

Secondly, I do not know how to give an answer if the question is posed unclearly. As I understand it, the question concerns the former Patriarch [St.] Tarasius. On this matter I have long reflected, reasoning much with myself and envisaging the consequences of this. Those who are zealous for the good and have suffered for many years I praise and approve, but I by no means lose sight of the need that they be of one mind. And can one think otherwise of those who have proved to be so courageous in piety?

Nevertheless, having laid truth as the foundation, I will give an answer to the extent possible and in a fitting manner. So then, I will say the following. What was the cause of our disagreement with Tarasius? Was it the faith? But, as far as is known, he was Orthodox, followed the holy Councils, was of one mind with the other patriarchs in his way of thinking, and previously labored much for the faith. Was it the reception of those returning from heresy? But this was not his innovation, for they were received by the Holy Fathers in a threefold manner: either through rebaptism, as the Pepuzians [i.e., a sect of Montanists]; or through chrismation, as the Arians; or through the anathematizing of their own teaching, as the Nestorians.

Was the cause of the disagreements the ordination for money, which is certainly punished by deposition? Yes, this is entirely just. Then the shepherds proved to be savage wolves, altars were destroyed, holy relics were dishonored, sacred books were burned. What else? Even the icon of Christ, together with other most sacred objects, was insulted and trampled upon. Who can briefly enumerate what requires a lengthy narration?

Is it not the case that all these misfortunes arose because the hierarch of that time, suddenly elevated from a worldly state to episcopal dignity, did not have sufficient strength to struggle for the Spirit? From here came the scandals; here also is the beginning of the present disturbances. You know how to regard him? But we, having heard in particular that those ordained for money are not received by him into communion, deemed it useful, for the sake of peace, to preserve agreement with him, although we ourselves thought otherwise. For [St.] Gregory the Theologian says that, as long as it is possible, one should incline toward peace, and where something grievous is only suspected, condescension is better than arrogance. Nevertheless, neither do we compel your conscience, nor should you demand from us a decision concerning what is unclear to us. For personal contact, and time, and experience change those who do not relate in the same way to one and the same thing.

And why is there a need to turn back to the divine [St.] Germanus [I] and to demand that ordination must necessarily have been performed at that time? For what do the three heretics who were in the interval matter [i.e., the previous Iconoclast Patriarchs of Constantinople, in succession, Anastasius, Constantine II, and Niketas I]? Is there even one bishop who was not ordained by them or ordained through them, since ordination was transmitted successively up to Tarasius? How many people from the East and the West, from the North and the sea, came during that time and entered into communion with our Church in sacred rank? And how many then were ordained and were ordaining without money, although they were heretics? All this can be known only to God; man, however, cannot assert it and on that basis consider all to be deposed.

We are men, and therefore let us look to deeds, I exhort you; for “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). It is necessary to require only the confession of faith by mouth, when it is not uttered with manifest falsehood—by which even Tarasius himself received ordination, and with regard to which the zealots and strict observers of that time agreed with Tarasius and were of one mind with him. However, soon after the Council, disagreements arose, in their opinion, concerning the acceptance of ordination for money and concerning certain other matters. If this seems just to you as well, then we shall pass on to the next question: let us speak of what has been from the time of Tarasius until now.

What conclusion, then, follows from this? According to [St. Gregory] the Theologian and Chrysostom, one must have communion with every priest who has not been condemned. For the former says: “Consider each one capable of purification, provided that he is among the elect and not among those openly condemned and estranged from the faith”; and the latter: “Examine, inquire diligently, for communion without examination is unsafe, and the danger concerns great matters.”

Therefore, let us examine and discern with whom we ought to enter into communion—whether he confesses the right faith, whether he was not ordained for money, and whether there is not some other just cause of reproach that is suspected in his life or that rumor conveys. But if it is indeed the case that he received ordination from a certain heretic or from one ordained for money, yet he himself is not a heretic and was, through ignorance, elevated to rank by one ordained for money—that is, by a simoniac—and he himself confesses the whole truth, keeps the faith and the canons unchanged, and rejects those who deviate from either, then we have no ground at all to withdraw from him. For such a one is not subject to condemnation, in the opinion of the aforementioned saints, and therefore also by common opinion.

In such a case, we ourselves have communion with them and advise you to do the same. For if the investigation be carried further, the exhortations of the saints will be rejected, and the great gift of the priesthood, through which we become Christians, will be rendered vain. In this way we could fall into paganism, which would be irrational. Moreover, those who undertake such an investigation, traveling through the West and the East, would find no one worthy, since all, one from another, would prove liable to deposition on account of mutual concelebration together. For it is known that in the time of Tarasius, the apocrisiaries sent from here served together with the Roman primate, and those sent from him perhaps served together with the Easterners. Thus, the priesthood would be destroyed; and in order that this might not happen, we, in agreement with the saints, shall observe the aforementioned measure.

In the Church there have occurred, and continue to occur, many such transgressions, which none of the saints, as far as I know, have investigated in detail—because this is impossible, and they did not command us to act in such a way. And when I heard that our insistence is allegedly no more beneficial for us than the council that ratified adultery [i.e., the Council of Constantinople in 806, which reinstated the hegumen Joseph], I was astonished, for it is as much more honorable as the voice of the Lord is above the apostolic. I do not assert that Tarasius did not say that there was ordination for money, but he, as is known, declared that he does not receive such persons into communion

And now, because of the acceptance into communion of one who united adulterers, there has been conciliar pronouncement—contrary to the Gospel, the Forerunner, and the canons—a teaching according to which lawlessness is recognized as economy [i.e., the Moechian controversy], as though bishops and priests may rule over the canons whenever they wish; and those who disagree with this, as you know, they curse and persecute. Although this occurred after the times of the iconoclastic heresy, yet for those who reason piously, it is no better than that. By their prayers may the Lord destroy the evil and grant His Church its former peace! Nevertheless, as you wrote, one action is refuted by another, and the recognition of an unlawful act is replaced by its rejection, and vice versa. May the Lord preserve you and your whole household in health and praying for our lowliness, foremost among friends and best among zealots!

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feodor_Studit/poslania/53

Time and the World of Decay

By Photios Kontoglou

 

 

The most dreadful and most inscrutable power in the world is Time, the Kairos. What this power truly is — no one knows. And all who have tried to define it have struggled in vain. The mystery of Time has remained incomprehensible, even though Time itself seems so natural to us. We cannot understand Time in itself — what it is — but we sense it only through the energy it exerts, through the marks it leaves upon creation. Its mysterious breath changes everything. Nothing remains stable — not even what appears stable and eternal. An unceasing motion whirls all things around, day and night, and no power can halt this elusive and hidden movement.

This thing we call Time is something we have grown accustomed to; we are familiar with it. Otherwise, terror would seize us if we were truly able to grasp what it is and what it does. As we have said, it works day and night, for ages upon ages, ceaselessly, silently, secretly, and it changes everything with an underground force — intangible, invisible, disobedient — so much so that one forgets it and thinks it does not exist, though it is the only thing that truly exists and that our mind, in no way whatsoever, can comprehend as ever not existing — how it could ever be destroyed, how it could ever cease. For how could that “someday” exist, when that “someday” is Time itself? How can one imagine that this very “someday” could ever cease to exist?

If Time were to vanish, everything would vanish. It gives birth to all things, and it also dissolves them, breaks them into fragments, and makes them disappear. That is why the ancient Greeks said in their mythology that Kronos — Time — devoured his own children. Birth, growth, decay, and death are its unceasing works. Though it surrounds us, presses upon us, and dwells within us, we do not fully perceive this incomprehensible master of ours — this friend and enemy alike — because it brings us all the good things that gladden us and all the evils that embitter us. It grants us birth, the sweet word of life, the joy of youth, the strength of courage; it bestows children, grandchildren, brilliant works that deceive us, every kind of pleasure and rest. And then, the same Time gives us sorrow, grief, pain, illnesses, the unbelievable alteration and ruin of our bodies and of the works we labored to create. And finally, it makes us drink the poison from the same cup from which it once gave us the sweet wine of joy, granting us death — both to us and to those we love.

Oh! Who will seize this thief who, day and night, winter and summer, while we sleep and while we are awake, ceaselessly, without pausing even for the blink of an eye, roams everywhere — around us, within us, in light and in darkness — entering every place: into the heavens where the stars revolve, into the depths below, into every land and every sea, into every crevice, into every living and lifeless thing, into every joint of rock, into every heart — aging everything, grinding it like a millstone, turning it to dust? And yet, on the other hand, the very same Time fashions every kind of structure and every creature, every body, everything that exists in this world!

Thus, like all things, we human beings too are playthings in the hands of this irresistible giant, who is at once our benefactor and our tyrant. And we accept the cup it offers us with one hand, filled with sweet wine, and we drink — and we also accept the other cup it holds in its other hand, filled with bitter poison. What, then, is this cruel game played with us by this monster, which has neither form nor voice nor anything of what the creatures it gives birth to and destroys possess — and which plays without laughing or weeping, indifferent and expressionless, cold as a ghost — this same power that ignites the flame of life?

Alas! This merciless millstone that grinds everything in the world, we celebrate every New Year, thanking it for what it has done to us before and for what it will do to us afterward — for the many evils we shall suffer from it, alongside the few good things it will bring us and snatch away swiftly. We are like condemned prisoners flattering their executioner, like the Roman gladiators who greeted Caesar before slaughtering one another, crying out: “Hail, Caesar, those who are about to die salute you!” So too we greet the new Time that will bring us closer to its mouth to devour us, and we leap and sing in our misery, like Aesop’s snails, at the very moment they were being roasted.

This material world is the kingdom of Time, which makes it bloom and wither unceasingly. Decay is the harsh law imposed upon it by this tyrant. With this unbreakable chain it also binds man, holding him as a helpless slave beneath its feet.

Only one hope exists for humanity to escape decay: Christ, the Redeemer, the destroyer of corruption. He who trampled down death and said:

“He who believes in Me, even if he dies, shall live. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever.”

The Apostle Paul, the key-bearer of the mystical world, says:

“Creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. And not only creation, but we ourselves, who have the Spirit within us, groan inwardly as we await adoption — that is, the redemption of our body.”

And elsewhere he says:

“If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.”

Yes. Only Christ — the Word of the Father, who has received all authority from Him — will grant incorruption to His beloved, abolishing both time and the spatial limits of matter from the world of decay. Behold what Saint Peter says about this transformation:

“The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works in it will be burned up.”

And in the Apocalypse are written these words concerning the new world of regeneration:

“And night shall be no more; they will need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light, and they shall reign forever and ever.”

 

Greek source:

https://anastasiosk.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_900.html

English translation:

https://www.mystagogyresourcecenter.com/2026/01/time-and-world-of-decay-photios.html