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