Послание 40. К Навкратию, сыну

Again you are in prison, beloved son, but again this is a shame for the dishonest heretics, and for you - an increase in heavenly rewards and honors. Therefore, for them I sigh and weep, but for you I rejoice and give thanks. Are you not made more tested by a second imprisonment, like gold twice burned in a furnace? Be strong, my holy son, and appear before the Sovereign Lord, pure and undefiled, truly a “vessel of good use, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). Endure patiently the unusualness of your second guard (I will not say - abbot or priest: for no servant of God or monk will serve in military affairs or even communicate with such a servant). However, let me know how he treats you, because I think he is better than before. But one way or another, you still, my son, stand courageously, relieving sorrows with joyful hopes and taking advantage of solitude to acquire dispassion by turning your gaze to God alone, looking at you, and through constant union with Him, rejecting with contempt the unprofitable thoughts brought by the sower of tares. As for your desire that I answer in detail about heresies and baptisms, this exceeds the measure of the letter, and moreover, it would be unnecessary to expand on what the God-bearing Epiphanius examined and described, like none of the Fathers. Therefore, read his holy book about this, and from it you will learn what you want to know. Good Euprepian will give it to you. I will answer briefly about those being baptized. The judgment about them is threefold. The Marcionites, Tascodrugits, Manichaeans and others like them up to the Melchizedekians are baptized, a total of twenty-five heresies 71 . The Tessarescedecatites, Novatians, Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians - five in all - will be anointed with the holy oil. The Meletians, Nestorians, Eutychians and the like, up to the present heresy, are not baptized or anointed, but only anathematize their own and every other heresy, until the present heresy; I do not indicate their number now, because the heresy of the acephalians falls into many parts, and the letter would be too long. Regarding what you said, that the canon does not discriminate, but definitely states that those who are ordained or baptized by heretics can be neither clerics nor faithful - take into account that the apostolic canon calls those heretics who are not baptized and do not baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We learn the same thing from the divine words of St. Basil the Great. He says that “heresies are those that are completely rejected and become alien by faith itself; schisms - those that, for some other ecclesiastical reasons and on issues that can be corrected, have disagreements among themselves; and unlawful assemblies are assemblies formed by disobedient elders, or bishops, or ignorant people.” He himself, giving one example of the first, says to Saint Amphilochius: “What is the basis for accepting the baptism of them (the Pepusians), who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? Those who were not baptized were those who were baptized into something that was not handed down to us.” Therefore, the rule and the Fathers, as the divine Basil says, called them and others like them heretics. Further, Saint Basil gives an example of the second: “The Kafars are among the schismatics” 72 . If you ask why these and all subsequent ones are called heretics, then we say and understand it this way. The first are heretics in the proper sense, because they impiously teach about the very essence of our faith in the Trinity. The latter are called heretics because of the abuse of this word and because they are derived from the former. They profess both faith and Baptism in the Trinity, preserving the special properties of each Hypostasis, and not just the one common to the Three, although they teach something else heretically. The example of the third is also given by the Holy Father himself: “For example, if someone, after being convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood and does not submit to the rules, but arrogates the chairmanship and priesthood to himself.” Just as the second are co-named with the first, so the third are co-named with the second. Thus, the Meletians, who were carried away by the schismatic Meletius, are called schismatics by the ancients, although they do not adhere to false teachings, for they, anathematizing their own schism, are said to have been accepted by the Catholic Church. In general, heresies are like some kind of chain woven by a demon: they hold on to one another and all depend on one head - wickedness and atheism, although they differ in name, time, place, quantity, quality, strength and activity. Thus, one and the same body consists not of just one member, but of many; their actions on each other, forces, properties, relationships and meanings are different. Regarding your other questions. To the first of them - about an Orthodox presbyter who, out of fear of persecution, remembers a heretic bishop - I answered you before and will say again: if he does not serve with the heretic and does not have fellowship with such people, then he should be accepted into the community during psalmody, during the blessing of food, and then according to oikonomia, but not during Divine Communion. When heresy prevails, it is imperative to investigate and, having accepted the confession, be content with it, unless it is clearly false. For I can tell you that we have learned from the Fathers not to investigate at a time when heresy is not rampant, and not to investigate regarding persons who are not clearly condemned. Nowadays, it is rare to find a presbyter who does not have contact with and communicate with heretics. The second question is about a Christ-loving person inviting him to serve an all-night vigil in his chapel: should he serve in it and with whom? You need to agree, and go, and sing together - of course, if the inviter and the singers are Orthodox, and both of them are wary of communicating with heretics. It is also necessary to serve in a chapel if the owner reliably proves that a heretic has not yet served in it. For it has already been said that it is necessary to investigate everywhere because of the rampant heresy. Third: if one of the Orthodox takes over a church from someone, and there turns out to be a custom - people gather once or twice a year and remember a heretic at the Liturgy, then singing there, if necessary, can be allowed, but serving the Liturgy - no. And if it is possible to stop this custom, then the Liturgy should be served. Fourth: if you come across a church in which the celebrant commemorates a heretic, and the Orthodox priest has a consecrated altar on the shroud or on boards, then is it possible to place it in the same church in the absence of a commemorator and serve the Orthodox on it? You should not, but it is better, if necessary, to serve in an ordinary house, choosing some clean place. Fifth: if on the way an Orthodox Christian happens to be invited by some priest or layman to a common meal and there is a time for singing, then what should he do? I said and will say again: when heresy prevails and is not struck by the Orthodox Council, then it is necessary to investigate, both at Divine Communion and at the common meal, and in this regard there is no place for either shame or slowness. Simply accepting bread from someone does not require investigation, any more than accepting food from him, perhaps in private, and getting a place to stay for the night - of course, if he was not previously known for heresy or moral depravity. But regarding other things, it must be investigated by necessity. Sixth: if an Orthodox Christian on the road comes across a church near a village or city, should he pray there, or even stop, avoiding entering the shelter of the laity? You should both pray and stop if she is alone. But both in the house of a layman and in the house of a priest, it makes no difference, as has been said, out of necessity due to the lateness of the hour, one can stop and taste the food in private, without examination, and accept what is needed (if, as I said, the recipient was not previously known to the recipient as belonging to the ranks of the wicked or lawless). And without necessity, it is not good to accept what is said as necessary, but one must examine and stop with an Orthodox Christian and, if necessary, take from him what is needed for the journey: for this is what the Lord commands through His saints. You answered well to the presbyter and abbot that those who are now ordained by a bishop who turned out to be a heretic, although he said that the council was bad and we perished, were excommunicated from the priesthood. For why does he, recognizing this, not flee from destruction, turning away from heresy in order to be a bishop of God? Then his ordinations will be immediately accepted. Or why, during the reign of heresy, did the abbot send the brethren for heretical ordination? So, if the one who ordained had corrected himself, then they could immediately perform the priesthood; and since he remains in heresy, remembering a heretic, even if he said that he had a sound way of thinking, it is impossible for those ordained by him to be true servants of God. If the spirit of zeal for God is inflamed in the abbot and he wishes to receive the crown of confession, then let him not serve in the church in which he presides, and do not remember him as a bishop. Blessed will he be, being an example of salvation for many others. When an altar is placed in the same church, there is no obstacle to serving there. What I forgot to note above, I will remind you here. When Saint Basil speaks of those who participated in illegal gatherings, that sometimes those who are in the ecclesiastical rank and those who have apostatized with the disobedient, if they repent, are accepted into the same rank, then let not your piety think that these words contradict the apostolic canon, which reads: “If anyone, belonging to the clergy, prays with someone who has been deposed, as with a cleric, let him also be deposed.” 73. Remember that just as the Fathers laid down the distinction between heresies and schisms, so according to the sequence of thoughts it is distinguished to whom the rule that irrevocably overthrows applies, namely, to the one who prays together with the one who has been overthrown, and not to those who participate in an unlawful gathering. For he knows that he is praying together with the one who was clearly deposed, and therefore rightly he is immediately deposed as having disobeyed the rule, and this one is as if he did not consider the one to whom he was carried away by the crowd to have been deposed: “if he repents, he is accepted into the same rank,” says the Holy Father. In the words of the saint it is often repeated that even the repentant is not accepted into the same rank 74 . Moreover, these words are spoken conditionally; the apostolic canon speaks decisively and unconditionally. That the falsely named Christopher 75 again returned “to his vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22), I was not at all surprised by this, knowing his instability and inconstancy. And that Clidonius endured imprisonment and scourging from the wicked for only one day for the truth, I was quite surprised at this. Since he has stood firm until now by the power of God, it would not be amiss for you and the other brothers to give him a helping hand, if possible. About those mentioned above, that is, those who are baptized, anointed with the holy world and anathematizing heresy, I wrote not as the divine Epiphanius distributed and listed heresies, but as I found in the interpretation of one of the most ancient industrious men, who made a study and extracted from the books of the Byzantine Church. Brother Gregory sincerely greets you. Those. are baptized upon conversion to the Orthodox faith. Apostolic Canon 49. To Amphilochius. Rule 1. Works in Russian translation. T.VII. P.6–7. M., 1892. To Amphilochius. Rules 32 and 51. Creations in Russian translation. T.VII. P.48 and 99. M., 1892. Christopher (Greek) – bearer of Christ. You might be interested in: