38th letter from the exile

Old Believer: By this canon the Holy Apostles forbade not the spiritual exploit (подвиг) of abstinence but that certain people considered it mandatory for themselves to fast during those days, i.e. every Saturday and Sunday as, for instance, Catholics fast on Saturdays. This is why, by making this exception, Balsamon did not contradict the canon itself and, all the more, did not become a violator of the apostolic decree because of this; just as the very holy apostles do not condemn those clergymen that do not partake of meat and wine during the holy feasts for the sake of abstinence, which is evident from other apostolic canons; for instance, the 53rd canon says: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, does not on festival days partake of flesh and wine, from an abhorrence of them, and not out of religious restraint, let him be deposed”. Same way, the 51st canon says about those that completely abstain from marriage, meat and wine: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them <…> let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman”. It is clear that you did not find any justification for your Church here either.

Can you see how the Holy Laodicean council had decreed? It even anathematized those, who celebrate the Sabbath, even though the Apostles decreed to celebrate it. I would like you to especially take notice of this example, since you always say that our Church unlawfully anathematized those, who kept the two-finger sign of the cross and other Pre-Niconian rites, and that for this anathema it lost its Orthodoxy. Of course I am not going to discuss in detail the anathemas of our councils (who was anathematized or why), since we are not discussing anathemas. I’m even willing to concede that the anathemas were put on the practitioners of the two-finger sign or, as you say, the keepers of the Apostolic Tradition. But this is exactly what the Holy Laodicean council did. It anathematized those, who celebrated the Sabbath according to the first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. The Hundred Chapter Council, which you like to reference on the issue of the two-finger sign of the cross and even consider it to be holy, re-established the celebration of the Sabbath. In other words, the Hundred Chapter Council established that, which was forbidden with an anathema by the Holy Laodicean Council. Now I ask you to answer to the following question: do you acknowledge that the Laodicean Council, which anathematized those who celebrate the Sabbath, as well as the Hundred Chapter Council, which abolished this anathema, to be Orthodox?

Old Believer: I surely do.

Niconian: And I thank you for this. Then you should also accept that our Church is Orthodox in the fact that it abolished, as you say, an apostolic tradition, i.e. the two-finger sing of the cross; just as the Council of Laodicea did with the first canon of Sts. Peter and Paul; same way as our Church abolished the anathema of the Hundred Chapter Council, and just as the Hundred Chapter Council itself abolished the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council. But if even after this you do not accept that our Church is Orthodox, it means you are just bluntly stubborn.

Old Believer: At the very beginning of our talk I had a chance to tell you that if you are to converse with me without bias, not as a missionary, with God’s help we can come to an identity of views concerning all issues. Until now you’ve been talking calmly but in your last words there really is a “missionary logic”. You allowed yourself to distort the precise meaning of the canons that you presented and bring them into conflict. But can there be a contradiction between canons? Let us see what the commentator of canons Zonaras says about this: “One should not think that canons give conflicting orders” (his commentary on the 14^th canon of the Holy Apostles). It is clear that there can be no contradiction between canons. Now all we have to do is eliminate the conflict that you’ve created, and the issue will become clear. So let us appeal to the first canon of Sts. Peter and Paul, which you read first and see whether there is a conflict with the Council of Laodicea. The apostolic canon says: “But on the Sabbath Day and the Lord’s Day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety”. Let us now read the canon of the Laodicean Council, only not the 29^th but the 16^th: “The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath, with the other Scriptures”. Tell me frankly: is there a contradiction here?

Niconian:  There is no contradiction here… but I read the 29^th, not the 16^th canon of the Laodicean Council to you; why do you then mention it? But with this I do agree.

Old Believer: Wonderful. Now let us proceed to the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ”. In order to understand the canon more precisely, we must read Balsamon’s commentary on it. He writes: “Read the 70^th canon of the Holy Apostles, which forbids the faithful to fast or celebrate with the Jews. And since, as we have said in the 16^th canon of the present Council, during the Sabbath certain people were in complete idleness from any activity, including the very divine psalmodies, which is peculiar to the Jewish religion, and since in that canon the fathers only decreed regarding the reading of the Gospel and Divine Scriptures, now they decree that the faithful must not abandon their activities according to the Jewish custom, but must work on the Sabbath and honour the Lord’s Day for the sake of the Lord’s Resurrection and abstain from activities and attend church. However, this also, meaning not working on the Lord’s Day, was not forcefully enjoined but was added: if the faithful can. For if due to poverty or some other necessity someone will work also during the Lord’s Day, he will not be condemned”. Hence it is obvious that the 29^th canon condemns not those, who “go to church for instruction in piety” during the Sabbath but those, who are “in complete idleness according to the Jewish custom” and who abstain even from the divine psalmodies, which “is peculiar to the Jewish religion”. The Jewish religion believes that during the Sabbath one must be completely inactive, and does not consider the Lord’s Day to be a feast-day and thus permits work during that day; that is why in the very 29^th canon it says “rather honouring the Lord’s Day” for the sake of elimination of judaizing. However if, following the advice of Balsamon, we are to read the 70^th canon of the Holy Apostle that says: “If any bishop, or any other of the clergy, fasts with the Jews, or keeps the festivals with them, or accepts of the presents from their festivals, as unleavened bread or some such thing, let him be deprived; but if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended”, and if we are also to read the 12^th (15^th) canon of the Holy Apostle Paul, which states: “That whoever follows the fables of the Greeks or customs of the Jews and does not submit to correction, let him be deposed”, we will see that even with the 29^th canon, the Council of Laodicea does not contradict the Holy Apostles, since with this canon it anathematizes the Judaizers, just as Balsamon indicates on this matter even clearer in the commentary on the 70^th canon of the Holy Apostles: “But do not say that these judaize, as if they are like-minded with the Jews. For such ones (judaizers) shall certainly be not only subjected to deposition or deprival of communion but to a complete excommunication, just as it was decreed by the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council”. Thus, it is as clear as noonday that with the 29^th canon the Council of Laodicea anathematizes those, who are being like-minded with the Jews, which is also condemned by the Holy Apostles with the following canons: 70^th of the Holy Apostles and 12^th of the Holy Apostle Paul. It is equally permitted to gather for instruction in piety by both the 1^st canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and the 16^th canon of the Laodicean Council. Therefore, the Hundred Chapter Council also did not cancel the anathema of the Laodicean Council, which was put on the Judaizers, but simply enacted the very same first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, which is in full agreement with the Council of Laodicea. Now tell me: is there a conflict between the first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council and the 95^th chapter of the Hundred Chapter Council?

Niconian: Now I see that there is no conflict between the canons.

Old Believer: I will also ask this: can one consider it to be an act juidazing when Orthodox Christians gather in church to hear the Holy Scriptures or, which is the same thing, for instruction in piety on the Sabbath?

Niconian: Listening to the Holy Scripture or being instructed in piety is not prohibited not only on the Sabbath but it also isn’t prohibited [to do so] every day. Moreover, not only it isn’t prohibited but it is also a duty and a necessity. For Apostle Paul writes about this to Timothy: “Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16). But I am still puzzled by the words in the Slavic Nomocanon. It says the following in the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council: “…If also the apostolic commandment decrees to celebrate on Sabbath. However it did not decreed this to the fathers, but decreed to celebrate and rest on the Lord’s Day [instead]”. This passage directly says that the apostles decreed to celebrate the Sabbath.

Old Believer: Forgive me that I remind you of the fact that there can be no contradiction between the canons. After the foregoing explanation, an unbiased discourser should not still be puzzled. But since there is a perplexity, we must eliminate it also. And in order to eliminate it in a quicer and clearer fashion, I should only ask you: who was the one to originally establish celebration of Sabbath… was it the apostles? Be so kind to answer.

Niconian: The celebration of Sabbath was originally established in the Old Testament by Moses.

Old Believer: And you say it was the apostles… now your perplexity is resolved.

Niconian: It is not me, who says that the apostles established the celebration of Sabbath. It says so in the Nomocanon.

Old Believer: But the Nomocanon says so, based on the first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, doesn’t it?

Niconian: Yes, there is no other basis.

Old Believer: Good. In the first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul it says: “But on the Sabbath Day and the Lord’s Day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety”. And the 16 canon of the Laodicean Council says: “The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath with the other Scriptures”. Then you yourself said that the Holy Scriptures are to be read not only on the Sabbath but at all times… it is even necessary. And you also presented the words of the Apostle Paul as the basis for this. How can you still be puzzled even after this?

Niconian: All you say is true but the Nomocanon does have these words… that the apostles decreed to celebrate the Sabbath.

Old Believer: Yes, but the celebration that is established in the canon of the Holy Apostles does not contradict the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council, since the Laodicean Council could not prohibit something that it decreed in another (16th) canon, and it also could not prohibit something that the apostles decreed… the holy apostles did not decree what was prohibited by the Laodicean Council.

Niconian: Then what do you think: why did the holy fathers write the 29^th canon of the Laodicean Council?

Old Believer: My personal opinion, of course, shouldn’t have any authority neither for you, nor for anyone else, but I don’t think it would be reprehensible to state it, especially because it does not contradict with the meaning of the 29^th canon. The reason for it, as I think, was that certain Christians celebrated the Sabbath in the manner of the Jews and worked on the Lord’s Day. This is what the canon speaks out against, so that they might “rather” celebrate the Lord’s Day as Christians, and the Judaizers might be condemned. Judaizers are exactly those, who celebrate the Sabbath and do not regard the Lord’s Day even as a holiday. In addition to everything that has been said, I will read to you the words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer: “No longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness… But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law… And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days… For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism” (Epistle to the Magnesians). Now tell me, what can satisfy you more than these wonderful words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer? Can you really still be puzzled even after this?

Niconian: No… now, after you’ve read the words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer, I finally resolved my perplexity and I am certain of the fact that there is no contradiction in the canons concerning the Sabbath that I’ve read. There was also no abolition of an Apostolic Tradition in the canon of the Laodicean and the Hundred Chapter councils. Our missionaries simply never admit to this… they will just stand their ground.

Old Believer: Let’s not even talk about the missionaries here. We, the Old Believers, know even better than you that the missionaries speak the truth only “by mistake” or “by misunderstanding”. That is why I asked you to talk with me not as a missionary.

Niconian: Now it became clear that the Council of Laodicea did not abandon any Apostolic Tradition. Our talk regarding this is over. However, I will prove to you from the practice of the ancient Church that even then there were such customs as celebration of the Sabbath and others that derive from Judaism. But no one thinks that the ancient Church lost Orthodoxy because of this. Same way our State Church did not lose its Orthodoxy for the three-finger sing of the cross and other rituals, even if they are new.

Old Believer: Please show me where it is written that the ancient Church had such customs as celebration of the Sabbath and that, at the same time, it was considered it be perfectly Orthodox. But I ask you to show a specifically Jewish way of celebration, not the one described in the first canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and by St. Ignatius the God-bearer.

Niconian: Listen… I will read from the book called “Apostolic Homilies”, in which St. John Chrysostom writes: “There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the Sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly”(Ch. 1, v. 7 [2]). And in another passage of the same book we read: “For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the Sabbath with the Jews…” (Ch. 2, v. 17). Can you see what the ancient Church did? “We, – says St. Chrysostom, – endure [those, who keep the Sabbath] nobly”.

It is clear that our Church did not lose its Orthodoxy, even if it keeps a non-apostolic tradition, i.e. the three-finger sign of the cross… just as the ancient Church did not lose it (Orthodoxy) even for keeping a Jewish custom, i.e. celebration of the Sabbath.

Old Believer: Did you read this from the actual “Apostolic Homilies” book or from somewhere else?

Niconian: No, I do not have the actual “Apostolic Homilies” book. I read this from the “Answers on 105 Questions” book by our missionary E. Antonov. But the reference to “Apostolic Homilies” is correct… even the pages are specified. We can check. Well, do you not believe it?

Old Believer:  I do believe what is written in the “Apostolic Homilies” but I don’t believe Antonov, who deliberately omitted important words of Chrysostom that follow the ones he presented. In this case he acted very “missionary-like”, i.e. distorted the words of the holy father. Was I not right that missionaries speak the truth only by misunderstanding or by mistake?

Niconian: What is the matter then?

Old Believer: Here is what: I have the “Apostolic Homilies” book at hand and we will see what Chrysostom meant by the words that you presented. Whether he meant that the celebration of the Sabbath, which was practiced then, as well as other Jewish customs were considered to be a pious thing that did not on infringe upon the purity of faith, or the contrary. So, let’s read the same passages that Antonov referenced: “There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the Sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely”. Can you see how Antonov dishonestly presented the words from scripture? He omitted the last words “rather ignobly and basely” and so the meaning became different: that, as you said, the ancient Church supposedly kept Jewish customs and was considered Orthodox for this. However there isn’t even [such words as] “the Church kept…” Chrysostom simply noticed certain Christians, who observed Jewish customs, and said that though we endure it nobly, we do so unbecomingly, unlawfully and “ignobly”. By pointing out that Christians break the law by observing certain Jewish customs, St. Chrysostom also pointed out the Christians that kept pagan (Gentile) customs, as he writes about this further on: “And why do I speak of Jews seeing that many Gentile customs are observed by some among us; omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days” (Homilies on Galatians, Ch.1, v. 7). Should we really conclude that the Church kept these? Because keeping means to have, observe, and maintain. Did the Church really keep and maintain all of this during the time of St. Chrysostom?! No, such a conclusion is an outward delusion and a reviling of the Holy Church. St. Chrysostom, who scourged those who break the Christian law, directly spoke of those Christians that by doing so “they equally exclude themselves from grace” (Homilies on Galatians, Ch. 2, v. 17).

If you really want to justify the reform of Nikon with this example, you should also accept that your Church observes the novelties unlawfully, unbecomingly and “rather ignobly”. Or, otherwise, must accept that the currently-existing pagan customs that are kept by the people are also kept by your Church.

Niconian: But it would be absurd to admit that our Church observes auguries. That’s impossible!

Old Believer: Therefore, it is also absurd that the example you presented justifies your Church in anathematizing Orthodox Traditions. Although, strictly speaking, one cannot say that your Church does not observe auguries, since in its euchologions there is a spell, attributed to Martyr Tryphon, in which after an invocation of caterpillars with the names of the Lord, Most Holy Mother and all the saints, it invokes with the great name, written on the rock that did not split but melted as wax. According to the teaching of St. Sylvester, the Pope of Rome (see his hagiography in Great Menaion Reader, January the 2^nd) this name that was written on the rock is the name of the devil. Therefore, your Church considers this name of the devil to be more powerful than the name of the Lord… but this is just among things… it has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion… And so, this example also does not justify your Church.

Niconian: We do not have the time to discuss the spell, included in our eulogions under the name of St. Tryphon, since this is not our subject right now. But I, on my part, will continue to present arguments in witness of our Church and will, at the end, prove that by abolishing certain traditions of the Church, our Greco-Russian Church did not lose its Orthodoxy.

Old Believer: Okay, please do.

Next they cover their necks and shoulders with a narrow cape, aiming at modesty of dress as well as cheapness and economy; and this is called in our language as well as theirs mafors (μαφώριον or μαφόριον is the monkish scapular, or working-dress. Cf. the Rule of S. Benedict, c. 55: “Scapulare propter opera.” In form it was a large, coarse cape, or hood); and so they avoid both the expense and the display of cloaks and great coats.

“The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults” (Book I, Ch. VI), St. John Cassian of Rome

Niconian: Here is the fifth canon of the holy apostles: “Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed”. See, this canon says that if a bishop turns divorces his wife, he should be deposed. Therefore he, the bishop, has to be married. However, the twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says the exact opposite: “But if any (bishop) shall have been observed to do such a thing (i.e. continue to live with his wife even after the consecration), let him be deposed”. If the Church did not have the right to change apostolic traditions, the Sixth Ecumenical Council would not abolish the fifth canon of the holy apostles. This example splendidly justifies our Church in abolishing certain customs and rites.

Old Believer: First of all, I should note that it is unfair of you to say that the Sixth Ecumenical Council supposedly abolished the fifth canon of the holy apostles. It is not true. The twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council clearly states: “We say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority”.

Niconian: Pardon me for speaking rashly but be that as it may, this does not change anything. Even if the canon was not abolished, the fact remains that the tradition concerning the wives of bishops, was itself abolished (which is even more crucial).

Old Believer: In order to examine this issue without bias, we must answer the following: is it part of the Apostolic Tradition for bishops to live with their wives? Be so kind as to give an answer to this highly important question; however do so on the ground of the apostolic teaching.

Niconian: Oh, with pleasure. The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires good work. It behooves therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3: 1-2). That is the answer to your question.

Old Believer: It is true that these words of the Apostle would answer my question but only if it did not have the phrase of one. However, because it is there, one cannot accept this to be a valid answer to the question that was put forth.

Niconian: So what is the sense and what is the meaning behind the apostle’s phrase “of one”?

Old Believer: I will answer to you with the words of the Blessed Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrus: “I find it is well said “a husband of one wife”. For in the ancient times some, both Gentiles and Jews, had a custom according to their law, to live with two, three or more wives”… but at the time those, who kept chastity could not be found without much difficulty. Hence by using the phrase of one, the Apostle established that the bigamists and trigamists could not become bishops.

Niconian: I agree with the fact that the phrase of one should be understood precisely in that manner. Nevertheless the Apostle still enjoins that a bishop must have one wife; this is what I stand by.

Old Believer: One must be careful in interpreting the Holy Scriptures; it is even better not to do it on your own, but rather (do so) by following the doctors of the Church, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed: “And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory” (nineteenth canon). Being guided by this wise decree of the Holy Council, in order to refute your words I will read to you the words of St. John Chrysostom, his commentary on the very same words of  the Apostle Paul to Timothy that you presented: “It was on this account that he said, ‘the husband of one wife,’ not that nowadays this restriction is observed in the Church, for a prelate must be adorned with perfect sanctity and purity, but that in those times for the Greeks who were living in a state of constant fornication it was deemed a great thing for a husband to have but one wife” (Second Discourse on Job). Mathew Blastares also says the same: “In the twelfth canon the divine fathers of the Sixth Council completely prohibited the bishops to continue living with their wives that were united with them in matrimony before the ordination, after their ordination. They decree: “And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority in the fifth canon, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things”. For in the beginning, when during the idleness of the Jews and superstitions of the Greeks the Church left much to be desired, the divine Apostles allowed them to observe certain customs of their fathers. For the Jewish and Greek bishops did not divorce their wives; but others say that even those bishops that live in strict chastity should abstain from interacting not only with somebody else’s but with their own wives so that there would be no cause for scandal among their apprentices. They present [the words of] the apostle: “Be without offence to the Jew, and to the Gentiles and to the church of God”, and so forth (1 Corinth., 10: 31-33). Then they propose that those who do not hold this decree in respect should be deposed”. So do you agree with Matthew Blastares and the commentary of St. Chrysostom on the words you presented?

Niconian: Yes, I agree and retract my words that the Apostle decreed it to be obligatory for a bishop to have a wife.

Old Believer: Thanks be to the Lord that you and I have established that it is not part of the Apostolic Tradition for bishops to live with their wives. The Apostles tolerated this, showing leniency towards the people of the time. Now, instead of speaking with my own words, I think it is necessary to read the following on the issue of concordance between the fifth apostolic canon and the twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council according to the book Pedalion: “Even before this Council (6th E.C.) marriage was forbidden to prelates, but by a local and not by a catholic canon. We know this from: 1) the divine Chrysostom, who says, in interpreting the words of the Apostle ”husband of one wife”, that the Apostle decreed this not as a law for the future but as leniency for the condition that the Church was in at the time… “But that in those times for the Greeks who were living in a state of constant fornication it was deemed a great thing for a husband to have but one wife; but a prelate must be adorned with perfect purity and sanctity”; 2) from the 4th and 33rd canons of the Council of Carthage, which decreed that bishops, presbyters, and deacons had to abstain from their wives; 3) the Council of Trullo made the local decree of the Carthaginian Church a law for the entire Church, by which it did not conflict neither with the fifth apostolic canon, nor with the words of the Apostle Paul (“a man of one wife”)… because a) the apostles merely allowed bishops to have wives, but did not make this a law. The Council of Trullo, seeing that the piety of Christians came to flourish, made celibacy a law for bishops as a way of improving their lives; b) the apostolic canon prohibits a bishop from separating from his wife against her will, but does not forbid to divorce her under their mutual consent” (Interpretation of the twelfth canon).

It seems that what has already been read is sufficient in order to reconcile the canons that you presented. However, so that it would be more convincing for you, I must also read the following from the book of a theologian and a canonist of your Church concerning these canons: “The Council of Trullo is where we first see an affirmative rule that bishops must stay celibate or divorce the wives, whom they had before. However, a more careful analysis of the canon in the manner it was formulated by the Council, with the addition of other indubitable evidence, shows not so much a new decree of the 6th century (i.e. when the Council of Trullo took place) but an affirmation of one of the most ancient and chiefly respected Traditions of the Church. According to the Fathers of the Council themselves, the reason for establishing the rule at the Council was that “In Africa and in Libya and in other regions, the prelates there, even after being ordained, keep on living with their wives”. The Council’s remark shows that the celibacy of bishops had already been a general custom or a tradition of the Church, departure from which was only in isolated cases and certain regions and, in addition, it caused scandal in the Church. By turning to the original canons of the Church, we see that the Apostolic canons forbade all of the clergy (including bishops) to put their wives away under the pretense of piety (apost., 5). However such decrees are explained by the circumstances of the time, during which the clergy had not yet been detached from the others, and had not quite formed. Thus, people from all ranks and statuses got accepted into clergy. During the first centuries, it was especially difficult to find people among the newly-converted pagans and Jews, who kept chastity in the mature age or were not married. In addition, on one hand, Jewish and pagan customs allowed free divorces of spouses, which contradicted the spirit of Christianity. On the other hand, in Christianity itself there were sects, such as, for instance, the sects of encratites and marcionites, which shunned marriage specifically under the pretence of piety and demanded divorces. Meanwhile, another Apostolic canon (51) states: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed”. Therefore, while condemning the abhorrence, the canon permitted abstinence from marriage for the sake of true religious restraint. Likewise the Church history and the canons of the Church affirmatively indicated that just as the religious exploits of celibacy and restraint in general, the observance of these in the clerical status, especially for a bishop, are borrowed from the Apostolic Tradition. This is what the Council of Carthage (419) states in one of its canons: “It was rightly decided that through the very consecration, obligated by bonds of chastity, as becoming of saints and priests of God, bishops should be continent altogether, so that what the apostles taught and antiquity kept, that we might also keep; and thus it is decided that bishops should be keepers of modesty and should abstain from their wives” (canons 3 and 4). Even though there is no doubt that during the first centuries some of the ordained bishops were married priests, most of them already started to brake off their conjugal unions with wives after ordination. There is also no doubt that people that were not bonded with marriage and distinguished themselves in chastity and abstinence were the ones to be chosen for episcopal rank. The great hierarchs of the ancient Christian Church are examples of this. It is also confirmed by the fact that those, who entered clergy in celibacy (excluding readers and chanters), were completely forbidden from marrying after being ordained (26th canon of the Holy Apostles). In addition, such individuals were forbidden to have females in their house under any pretense, with the exception of their mother, sister or other close relatives (third canon of the First Ecumenical Council). The Council of Nicaea already had the idea of establishing a permanent rule that bishops be celibate, and those, who are married, should divorce their wives. It was only when some proposed to make the rule apply to everybody, the Council, following the advice of St. Paphnutius, one of the Egyptian bishops, who himself was chaste and a desert-dweller, did not venture to put this burden on everyone, as it was not easy to bear for everyone. Thus the Council confined itself with only one general rule, that clerics, who stay celibate, would stay so forever and would not keep females in their house, except the above-mentioned individuals. However, the custom had a force of the law, and so bishops were primarily chosen from the unmarried or, if they had a wife before their ordination, left them after admittance into the office. Confirming the laws of ecclesiastical order, Emperor Justinian the Great (6th cent.) gives force of law concerning election of bishops, to the decree, which he calls ancient and patristic, that bishops should be chosen from monks or from those, if [they belong to] white clergy, with no wives or, at the very least, no children, so that they may leave their former wives without hindrance after the ordination. This decree was confirmed several times (see 48th canon of the same council). Thus, the Council of Trullo can, in fact, be accounted only for turning the ancient tradition and custom of the Church, as well as particular temporarily decrees concerning celibacy of bishops into a general and permanent rule for all places and times in the Orthodox Church. As a result, since after the ordination of married priests into episcopal rank, the indispensable divorce with their wives could not be without many difficulties, and could not occur without their mutual consent, in order not to contradict the apostolic canons (fifth canon of the Holy Apostles) and general laws of Christian wedlock, the Church made it a rule that monks should be ordained into episcopacy (“Practice of Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence Course”, John of Smolensk). Thus, from the evidence presented one can clearly see that even though there had been cases of bishops living with their wives in the ancient times, this had been done not according to the Apostolic Tradition. And how could this tradition be from the holy apostles, when they themselves left everything and followed the footsteps of their Teacher, as can be seen directly from the Holy Gospel: “Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed you: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:27-28). Thereby, it has been absolutely confirmed that with the twelfth canon the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not abolish an apostolic tradition but prohibited a deviation from the universal practice of the Holy Church, which has sprung from the Holy Apostles. However, your state Church did not prohibit a deviation but an observance of the Tradition of the Holy Apostles. That is why this example also only condemns your Church, and does not justify it in the slightest.

Niconian: No matter how convincing you prove that in the ancient times bishops lived with their wives not according to the Apostolic Tradition, and perhaps one could even agree with your argument, I will, however, prove that the even the apostles themselves, continued to live with their wives during their mission.

Old Believer: Is that so? And where did you find such evidence?

Niconian: I see that you’re mocking me when asking with such surprise where I found such evidence that the apostles continued to live with their wives during their mission. As if you yourself don’t know about this evidence.

Old Believer: Forgive me for the sake of God, but I speak in complete seriousness without any mockery. I ask you to specify where you found such evidence.

Niconian: Listen to what the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Corinth. 9:3-5). Here is the evidence that the apostles, though not all of them, lived with their wives during the mission. I can in no way concede that you did not know about this fact.

Old Believer: It was fair of you to say that I know this fact. However it was unfair of you to allege that from this, one can see that the apostles lived with their wives even during their mission. I already had a chance to warn you regarding studying of the Holy Gospel that one must interpret it only the way it was interpreted by the fathers and doctors of the Church (see the nineteenth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). This same thing I repeat to you right now. Thus, let us see how the holy fathers interpreted this passage. Blessed Jerome writes the following against Jovinianus: “In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: “Lo we have left all and followed thee”, the Lord answered him, “Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.” But if in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words “Have we no right to lead about women or wives even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord?” let him add what is found in the Greek copies, “Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives?” This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterward made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take γυναὶκας to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock” (Book I, 26).

The Venerable Joseph of Volokolam writes: “Can you see how the holy apostles loved chastity and purity and suffered for it even unto death? They enjoined not only kings, princes, nobles and not only men but also women to live pure and chaste life; to the husbands they advised to leave their wives, and to wives [they advised to] drift away from their husbands for the sake of pure and chaste life. And at the same time they also lived pure and caste lives without wives. If they themselves lived with wives, how could they advice others to separate from wives and live pure and chaste life, concerning which we wrote above?

When the holy Apostle Paul says: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife…” (1 Corinth. 9:5), he talks about pious women that joined the apostles and ministered them during the time of evangelism just as before they had ministered to Christ. And that is why the apostle calls them sisters, saying: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife…” (“The Enlightener”, pt. 11). Accordingly, Blessed Theodoret writes in the commentary on these same words of the apostle: “But this to lead about a sister, a wife was interpreted by some in the sense that just as faithful women followed Christ, providing the disciples with necessary food (Luke 8:3), the same way women also followed some of the apostles, showing their fervent faith. They were attached to their teaching and helped their divine mission”. The same thing is indicated in the book “Guide to Analytical Reading of the New Testament Books”: “‘Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife’. This passage is interpreted differently by different commentators. Usually they interpret it as follows: the apostle speaks here about the right to have a wife, be married to a sister, i.e. a christian woman, as were the other apostles, the brethren of the Lord and Cethas, who, indeed, was married (Matthew 8:14). The Greek —- does not mean the same thing as the Latin ducere uxorem – to marry, but to carry about a woman as a companion.The apostles were followed, just as Christ was followed by women that helped with what they owned and shared their missionary labors. However the apostles Paul and Barnabas declined the help of these women, though could carry them about as did the other apostles. The apostle asks: are Barnabas and he are the only ones who have no right to have these women from the sisters, i.e. christian women as companions?” Though the last explanation does not belong to a holy father, but since it is in complete agreement with the aforementioned explanations of the holy fathers, it does not seem superfluous to mention it, especially as it was published with the permission of the religious censorship of your state church. From the patristic and other evidence that was presented, it follows that one must understand the Apostle Paul’s words “a sister, a wife” not as wives but as companions, who helped the apostolic mission.

Niconian: Okay now I can really see that one should not interpret the Holy Scripture on his own but must follow the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, otherwise one can fall into error. However that may be, I will proceed and continue to give more examples from the history of the ancient Church of Christ and will prove that our state church has not lost its orthodoxy by abolishing certain customs and rituals that were used before Patriarch Nikon.
Old Believer: Good, please present everything you know, and we shall examine everything without haste.

Every injustice, theft and unlawful acquisition is evil, and the most evil of evils, reprehensible and deserving of hatred on the part of God-loving souls. And the publican is a constant figure of greed, malice and iniquity. Just as in the mountain lions and bears are the beasts which are far fiercer than other beasts, so also in cities and countries publicans and slanderers are more unjust and wicked than other men. The unjust acquisition of wealth is a sin hateful to mankind; it is opposed to the virtue of hospitality. As cold is the opposite of warm; black, of white; and darkness, of light; so is the publican opposed to the commandment, by oppressing the poor. The wealth of the publican comes from nothing else than the tears of the poor; as many as seek to get rich from such acquisitions will soon afterwards be weeping as they are deprived of their own goods. Extortion is the old leaven, which brings corruption wherever it falls. One who takes even a little unjustly utterly ruins all that he has; for often the little that was brought in unjustly has caused the loss of the large amount that had been accumulated justly. Perhaps thou seest many who have acquired their wealth unjustly and have not immediately suffered anything; nevertheless, they will not escape judgment forever. If they avoid it in this life, they should fear and tremble all the more, because greater punishment is in store for them in the next life. Further, even if they themselves avoid punishment here, their heirs will suffer, as having obtained an inheritance filled with iniquity. Though they did not steal it, still they know well that they are holding what belongs to others; therefore, if they know exactly who was wronged, let them take great care to return their property to them, and with interest, following the example of Zacchaeus. If, however, they do not know who was wronged, let them divide the property among the needy; in this way they will be relieved of a grave burden and will be freed from sin. Even if we give away everything that is not our own, we do not gain any benefit, as Zacchaeus shows; for whatever he acquired unjustly, he returned fourfold, and only then did he speak about receiving mercy from God. As for us, if we steal a lot and give away a little, how can we move God to mercy? If Cain, who brought an inferior offering but still had not injured anyone, incurred complete condemnation, how shall we not suffer worse things when we offer the fruits of theft and extortion? If Lazarus, who was in no way harmed by the rich man, but only deprived of the enjoyment of his goods, is presented to him as a bitter reproach, what defence will there be for those who not only are not charitable with their own property, but even take the property of others? If they who did not feed Christ when He was hungry and did not give Him drink when He was thirsty, will be damned to unquenchable fire together with the devil, how much more they who consign Christ to hunger and thirst; who steal; who strip bare those who are clothed; who not only do not receive a stranger, but rather drive him out; who not only do not visit the sick, but cause them greater pain; who not only do not look in on a prisoner, but cause a freeman to be thrown into prison–what punishments will such men receive? The Lord loves justice and mercy, and he who exercises justice and mercy draws near to Him. But goods gained unjustly and then given to the needy are not pleasing in the sight of God, nor does God accept offerings of such things. Of those who harm others and then start to offer gifts to God it is written, The sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to the Lord.2 And the Proverbs teach us, Honour the Lord with thy just labours, and give Him the first of thy fruits of righteousness.3 For if thou wouldst offer God the fruits of injustice and theft, it were better not to acquire such property and not to offer it. Why do we defile our property by adding ill-gotten gain to it? Why do we offend the Master by offering Him unclean gifts? Christ does not wish to be fed with the fruits of greed; such an offering He does not accept. It is better to ignore the poor who are wasting away with hunger than to feed them with ill-gotten goods; it is better to give nothing than to be giving to others goods which are not one’s own. The pious man is he who injures no one, not he who gives large sums in alms. God is not a party to greed; the Lord is not the partner of thieves and robbers. It is not because He is incapable of feeding the poor that He has left it to us to feed them, but because He seeks of us a just and charitable offering, for our own good. There is no charity in injustice, nor does a blessing come from a curse, nor a benefaction from tears. The man who takes from some and gives to others has not given alms, but has rather committed the greatest of offences. Let us truly practice almsgiving, in such a way that we may receive a reward from God. God rewards those whom He finds deserving of praise; He has no praise for a thief. To those who spill the tears of the oppressed the Lord says, And these things which I hated ye did: ye covered with tears the altar of the Lord, and with weeping and groaning because of troubles.4 They that spend their ill-gotten gains in good service do as fine a deed as they that offer to God’s honour sacred objects that have been stolen. Let us, then, examine ourselves, brethren, and review our works, whose fruits we wish to offer to God or to give as alms: Have we done wrong to a poor man? Have we overpowered one who is weak? Have we injured one subject to us, exercising power instead of justice? We are commanded to show justice and equity towards those under us, even to our servants. We must not treat them with violence merely because we are their masters, nor offend them simply because it is in our power to do so; rather, since we have authority, let us demonstrate justice. The evidence which we give of our obedience and fear of God is not that we are unable, but that we are able to transgress, yet do not do so. We are not to make offerings to God if we offend our brethren. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee…go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.5 Let us call to mind Zacchaeus the publican. He resolved to make fourfold restitution to those whom he had offended, and then he gave half of his remaining wealth to the poor; for he knew that he was to receive Christ, and Christ will only accept concern for the poor if goods obtained unjustly are first restored to the injured parties. In this way Christ accepted Zacchaeus’ resolution, and said, This day is salvation come to this house. That this is so the very words of the Gospel will show today, saying: THE GOSPEL: At that time Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.6 The Explanation: Jesus was passing through Jericho, and many people were following Him; among them was Zacchaeus. Marvelling at the miracles wrought by Christ, he desired and strove to see Him, who He was, but he was hindered from seeing Him by the multitude of people, because of his short stature. Approaching the problem wisely, he went up into a fig tree and was able to see Jesus. As he looked on, he also was seen. Thus, the Lord called him, calmly and unassumingly, and drew him to Himself with His call. Leaving behind all the other men of Jericho, He came under the roof of a publican, not because Zacchaeus who lived there was a man of blameless conduct, and not because his house was a fitting resting place for God, but because it would be blessed by His coming, and would be no longer a wolf’s den, but the dwelling of the unspotted and immaculate Lamb Himself, Christ. Zacchaeus was a well-known public figure, famous everywhere for extortion and iniquity, for he was the chief among tax-collectors; he did not simply hold the position of publican, but was lover of money and material things, desirous of amassing much gold. Though he was rich because of his father and mother, he was not content with what he had, but strove to increase his wealth by collecting taxes. Just as hell has never said, Enough, so also the man obsessed with riches cannot control his desire, even if he should take the property of everyone. Suffering also from such an illness of mind and soul, Zacchaeus was blinded by the passion of avarice. However, since his soul was deeply touched by thinking about healing, he had recourse to Christ, and after he had washed away his avarice like some gross filth, he apprehended the light of righteousness and contentment. He soon became a different man than he had been; he became a man of few possessions instead of a tax-gatherer, a wise man instead of an oppressor, a merciful man instead of a robber. And he was rich. In order to show the many spiritual infirmities of Zacchaeus, the Evangelist said, And he was rich. The sickness of riches is a great hindrance to salvation, and the tyranny of avarice is a great obstacle to being healed. Therefore, Christ said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!7 Still, because of God’s good will, the possession of riches did not deter Zacchaeus from salvation at all, forasmuch as the very same Lord also says, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.8 Therefore, not even this chief of publicans was spurned, though he was greedy and unjust. Filled with divine zeal, he put justice and mercy into practice, and received salvation. For the Lord steals the devil’s strongest vessels and lays low his cities; thus, He not only made publicans His disciples, but He even captured for salvation the chief of publicans, Zacchaeus. THE GOSPEL: And he sought to see Jesus who He was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him; for He was to pass that way.9 The Explanation: Zacchaeus had heard of Christ, that He was a Worker of great miracles, One Who performed most glorious deeds, and that His words and teachings were leading many away from sin and turning them towards salvation; and he desired to see Him. Since he was unable to attain what he sought, he thought to find a place and a condition wherein he could arrive at a plan to see the One Whom he already loved; therefore, being hindered by the crowd and by his height, he went up into a sycamore tree. This tree is low and humble, and similar to a fig tree. It does not bear a fruit useful to man or beast; indeed, its fruit is quite useless. In the Greek language it is called sycomorea, meaning a wild and useless fig tree. Zacchaeus, then, went up into this sycamore tree, because Christ was going to pass by that way. THE GOSPEL: And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house.10 The Explanation: The Lord now sees Zacchaeus with His human eyes; but even before this He saw him with divine eyes, and knew that he was ready to obey, eager to believe and easily converted from vice to virtue; therefore, He calls him and goes to get him. In the same way, God always anticipates us, if only we look to Him with diligence and have recourse to Him with fervour. THE GOSPEL: And he made haste, and came down, and received Him joyfully.11 The Explanation: Zacchaeus rejoiced not simply because he had seen the Lord, as he had sought to do, but because he was called by Him, and because he received Him; this he had not expected to happen. Therefore, when Zacchaeus was called by Christ the Saviour, he hastened to come down and received Him with joy. Let us also act in the same manner; with eagerness and joy let us receive Christ in our hearts when we are called; and there is never a time when the Master does not call us; therefore, let us not be lazy, nor let us subvert our salvation by spurning the present day and waiting for the morrow; for by neglecting the present we expect what we do not have, as if we ourselves set the span of our life. THE GOSPEL: And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That He was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.12 The Explanation: Publicans were regarded as sinners, because of their greed and injustice; therefore, the Jews reproached Christ, and their rulers and chief priests murmured against Him, just as they did concerning Matthew the publican and many other such men. They did not understand the way in which the Lord dealt with those men; therefore, He ignored them, as being men who grumbled for no just cause and who found scandal in such things. For it is right to ignore a little scandal where the great good of someone’s salvation is concerned, so as not to forfeit and lose what is great for the sake of something small. THE GOSPEL: And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.13 The Explanation: O the swiftness of the change–from money-lover to willing giver, from most unjust to just! O the salvation self-taught! He had not yet learned anything from Christ, but already he gave half of his goods to the poor as charity; the other half he kept, not for his own possession, but to repay fourfold what he had acquired wrongfully. When he says here, If I have wronged any man,14 it does not mean, If I have slandered anyone in vain, but, If I have acquired anything wrongfully and unjustly. Moreover, he makes fourfold restitution, according to the Law, which commands that four sheep be repaid for one sheep.15 Let those of us who wrong others hear these words, and let us make the same sort of restitution with our ill-gotten gains to those whom we have wronged, and let us apply such a remedy to our injustice. THE GOSPEL: And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house.16 The Explanation: By house He indicates all who were in the home of Zacchaeus. This day, He said, is salvation come, for the loss which comes from greed and injustice is driven out. THE GOSPEL: Forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.17 The Explanation: That which was lost, He means, of the seed of Abraham; this the Lord said for the benefit of those who were murmuring and saying, That He was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. It is fitting, He said, that Zacchaeus be saved, inasmuch as he, too, is of the race of Abraham, and I became man for the sake of the descendants of Abraham first of all. As He said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.18 Also, in another way it may be said that Christ calls children of Abraham those that are of one mind with Abraham, those that are his kindred by their conduct and the increase of their faith. Therefore, Christ did not say that Zacchaeus was of the lineage of Abraham, but that he now is, because he was converted from vice to virtue. For just as Abraham was called by God and left his fatherland, so also did Zacchaeus leave behind the collection of taxes. Just as Abraham turned his back on the people that tied him down or held him back, so also did Zacchaeus abandon the greed in which he was entangled. Abraham had a barren wife, and Zacchaeus had a soul barren of good works; but with a single act of faith Abraham begat a son, Isaac, and Zacchaeus acquired a daughter, that is, unacquisitiveness. And each of us, brethren, is a Zacchaeus, short in spiritual stature. Though we are still dragged down among earthly things, we seek to see Christ clearly and properly, but we cannot see Him unless we leap away from such as keep us from Him, and climb up a tree; that is to say, unless we transcend earthly things and rise to the things of heaven. Then Christ will see us, will cordially call us to Himself and will make His dwelling in us; for in this way do fervent believers become the house of God. If we also, brethren, wish to receive Christ in our houses and to feed Him, let us receive the homeless and take into our houses the poor; for whatever good we do for our brethren the poor ascends to Christ Himself.19 Knowing this, let us receive Christ with a fraternal welcome, with neighbourliness and hospitality, so that each one of us may hear the words, This day is salvation come to this house. But be afraid, all ye who wrong the poor; though ye possess power, riches, property and the friendship of the mighty, (the poor) have a weapon stronger than all these things, one which receives aid and assistance from heaven: sighing and weeping, as also the very wrongdoing itself.20 Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.21 These weapons have destroyed many nations; for such is God’s concern for the oppressed that the sighing of men who are wronged is a great and mighty weapon. God has regard for their wisdom, when they suffer severely yet utter no evil word, only sighing and weeping over their woes. And God is merciful to those who are wronged, whereas He punished those who injure and oppress them. Let us, then, brethren, flee unrighteousness, and please God with justice and charity, as did Zacchaeus, that we may find Him merciful in the day of His righteous recompense; that we may be vouchsafed His heavenly kingdom and enjoy eternal good things, through the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom be glory and dominion, honour and worship, together with His unoriginate Father and the most holy, good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. NOTES 1. cf. 1 Cor. 5:7-8. 2. Prov. 15:8. 3. Prov. 3:9. 4. Mal. 2:13. 5. Matt. 5:23-24. 6. Luke 19:1-2. 7. Luke 18:24. 8. Luke 18:27. 9. Luke 19:3-4. 10. Luke 19:5. 11. Luk3 19:6. 12. Luke 19:7. 13. Luke 19:8. 14. So the Douay version, which here more closely corresponds to the text. The A.V. renders the passage more freely, as in the citation above. If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation. The R.S.V. translates the same line: If I have defrauded anyone of anything. 15. Exod. 22:1. 16. Luke 19:9. 17. Luke 19:9-10. 18. Matt. 15:24. 19. cf. Matt. 25:40. 20. The sin of oppression of the poor is one that cries out to heaven for vengeance, and thus it turns into a weapon for its victims against their oppressors. cf. Exod. 22:21-24. 21. Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19.

Old Believer: You are wrong, thinking that the Six Ecumenical Council abolished a tradition that existed during the times of the apostles. Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council only defined the meaning of words from the Book of the Acts more accurately and specified how to understand the passage regarding seven deacons correctly. The 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself tells us this: “Since the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the synod of Neocæsarea in the canons which it put forth determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons, even if the city be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we, having fitted the mind of the fathers to the Apostles’ words, find that they spoke not of those men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the administration which pertains to the serving of tables”. Therefore no apostolic tradition was abolished. We only see that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council did not understand the passage from the Acts of the Apostles correctly, which is why the Sixth Ecumenical Council corrected this inaccuracy. It is important to note that having defined the percise meaning of the words from the Book of Acts, the Sixth Ecumenical Council preserved the inviolability of the apostolic decree and passed over the vague definition given by the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council in silence iherent to holy fathers. Thus this example, much like the first one, does not justify the reforms of Nikon but condemns them for abolishing apostolic traditions. As for the words from the commentary on the 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, included in the slavic Nomocanon, that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council “poorly understood” (the meaning), I ask you to listen to the student of Venerable Maximus the Greek, monk Zenobius, who in the 56th chapter of his book “Indication of Truth” writes the following:

“For those who thought that the decree talks about hierodeacons that minister at the altar, the fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical council apprehended this decree and established that under seven deacons the fathers of the Neocæsarean meant those, who look after the maintenance of the hungry, not those that minister at the Mysteries; and that was exactly what they wrote, presenting the words of Chrysostom on the Acts as proof that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council established to have seven servants of those in need, not of the altar. Do you also comprehend the extend of like-mindness between the ecumenical and local councils, for the holy fathers are guided by one Holy Spirit and have one mind? Liar is he who blasphemes against the holy councils of holy fathers, for there is no division or discord among the holy councils, but unity in one Holy Spirit!” And Athanasius said to Zenobius: “The rostovian book includes the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which says that the Neocæsarean Council poorly understood what the Acts say about seven deacons, and erroneously established to have only seven deacons. That canon of the Sixth Council blasphemes against the Neocæsarean Council. This is what the rostovian book says”. Then he (Zenobius) asked him: “Was the rostovian book written on paper or leather? If it was written on paper, whose style was the rostovian book written in? Was it the style of the old clerks or the style of our contemporary ones?” Athanasius answered: “The book of rostovian canons was written on paper with the writing of our contemporary clerks. It is neither new nor old”. Then he answered them: “This opinion is written in the rostovian book because certain enemies of truth or those who have no fear of God distorted the canons. The canons that I have just presented to you include the decrees of truth. For this book was written on leather during the times of prince Iziaslav the son of Yaroslav, grandsom of Vladimir the Great, who baptised Rus’. Also the canons that I have showed you are the decrees of truth, because they were written during the time of the enlightment of our land, when books were translated from greek to russian. While the Rostovian book was written on paper with hand of our contemporary clerks. For it was distorted by men, who are enemies of truth or do not fear God. If the rostovian book would not be distorted, its canons would be identical with the ancient canons without any addition. But since the rostovian book does not correspond with the old canons, one cannot follow the canons written in it for it was distorted by unrighteous men”.

Niconian: Now I trully see that the Sixth Ecumenical council only specified the percise meaning of the words from the Acts, and that having corrected the inaccuracy of fathers of the Neocæsarean Council, it did not change any apostolic tradition but actually preserved the inviolability of the later in accuracy. However, I am not going to stop at this and will give you another example, which proves that the ancient Church trully abolished the traditions of the Holy Church but did not lose its orthodoxy because of it.

Old Believer: Please do.

At this time, fr. George is at home and his life is not in danger but the treatment and recovery are going to take some time.

We ask all christians to pray for the recovery of Father George.

More here