Letters 1 part 8/55

For everything that is impossible is, conversely, also necessary.

For example, it is necessary that the sun shine, but it is also impossible that it not shine.

But as for saying, Your Holiness, that it once did not shine — this refers entirely to the Passion of Christ.

for I do not see how this could apply to nighttime.

But these things are portents, neither lawful nor canonical, but either above nature or contrary to nature.

The first is exemplified by Christ's own dispensation, the second by the present lawlessness — which has come about not in some hidden corner, as it were in passing, but openly, and has been confirmed as law in its own right through synodal action and through the exile of those who stood firm for the truth — as if it were merely some transgression of the divine canons, when, to speak more truly, it is a robust and wicked heresy.

O the audacity of those who did this!

And the outrage against almost all the canons — a thing so perilous for us who are lowly — inasmuch as they diminish something of what is proper.

But how could there be an 'economy' in the case of those who concelebrate with the one who effected the adulterous union and who took the lead in the synod that ratified it, as the divine Basil said? For he often says that even those who went along with the insubordinate, when they repent, are to be received back into the same rank — but not by us, even should they ever repent, but by those of equal standing, as the divine Dionysius said.

Most matters I leave to your understanding, which has sacred power to oversee what escapes us.

Glory to God for the release of the brothers, if this is indeed true; glory to God also for your God-given endurance, my brother, amid the harsh stings inflicted there by men uncircumcised in spirit.

Grant me your perpetual remembrance, which keeps me, drowsy as I am, awake; and also your sacred prayer -- I who need, above all things, especially that of our father and of you.

I have learned that, by the grace of Christ, you have composed some work; and if you bid me, I would read it for edification.

{To my son Arsenius} How greatly I rejoiced, now again, on reading your letter, most beloved child -- not so much because of the door now opened to you for meeting with the brothers, though that too is desirable, as because of the grace of God upon your tongue, by which you shut the ungated mouths of those given to heresy.

May the Lord, then, further grant you the word of knowledge and wisdom to thoroughly refute the champions of impiety, so that you may fittingly sing together with the divine David: 'I opened my mouth and drew in the Spirit, for I did not forget your commandments.'

Against whom the Moechians, in their fury, in effect utter by their own deeds that scriptural saying: 'Depart from me; I do not wish to know your ways.'

For if they had known, they would not have transgressed the Lord's commandments; nor, having transgressed them, would they have decreed synodically that their transgressions were a saving dispensation for the Church of Christ, under anathema upon those who did not accept them as such.

This impious doctrine is so grave that it not only overturns the sacred Gospel -- since it is the nature of the part, when corrupted, to overturn the whole -- but even abolishes the very dispensation of Christ.

For things which are mutually opposed are, each in respect of the other, heretical.

That the adulterous union, though decreed a saving dispensation, is in fact contrary to the divine dispensation for the abolishing of sin, is surely evident to everyone.

But indeed the adulterous synod is also full of other impieties as well, which -- should you happen again to see brother Euprepianos -- he will point out to you.

Farewell, and be strong on both accounts, my child, casting out those who invisibly assail you by the strength of faith, of holy fear, and of love.

For since, attacking from without through the heresies they stir up, they are repelled by the orthodox mind, the deceitful ones then come from within, scheming to plunder the treasure of the soul.

From whose hunting may we be delivered, lifting up our hands to God with the cooperation of the prayers of our common father and of all the pious -- both I and you and all our brothers.

The abbot of [the monastery of] the Flute-player does indeed pipe, but with meaningless notes, out of tune with the Holy Spirit; and his claim that he looks to Rome is but a refuge for a feeble argument, and, for the present, a pretext of false excuse.

And his statement concerning Sabas and Theoktistos, the most devout monks -- this and that, and that Rome said such and such -- is not true.

For some objected to the bishops returning from the icon-fighting heresy being received back into their own ranks (not all of them, but the outstanding and foremost leaders of the heresy, according to the reasoning of St. Athanasius) -- and this not unreasonably.

But since the synod at that time had decided to receive all of them back, having as its precedent the fourth holy synod, they gave their assent.

For nothing essential was thereby being transgressed.

But concerning the Simonians, the matter was at that time passed over in silence, since the question was to be investigated after the synod.

...to monks, whose names I forbear to mention.

A decree of propitiation was issued by him regarding perpetual deposition, so that those who had been deposed by God through Peter, the chief of the apostles, might again become ministers of Christ.

Then, since Sabas and his companions would not agree to this, but even quarreled with him over it, what does he do? He tries to remedy an evil with an ostensible good.

He denies having granted a penance, and denies admitting those who had ordained and been ordained for money.

But in saying this he is refuted by the empress then reigning, by whom he had also been compelled to grant that unlawful penance.

The feast day of Christ's Theophany arrived; on that day those under penance came, having completed their penance and seeking absolution.

He was reluctant to receive them; the empress, however, was urgently pressing for their admission.

Once again the president exchanges good for evil.

He openly concelebrates with them on that very feast -- not, it would seem, willingly, but in truth willingly.

Since, though able not to concelebrate with the deposed, he concelebrated with them anyway -- even if someone should say, in whatever manner, that he was unable to refuse -- from this arose the dispute of Sabas and his companions against him; from this the dissolution of the divine canons spread all the more.

But Rome did not accept these things (God forbid!), nor did it regard even the synod itself as ecumenical, but only as local, one that had set right the fall peculiar to the churches here.

For neither were those who took their seats there genuine representatives of the other patriarchs.

For the Roman delegates had been sent here for another purpose, not for a synod -- for which reason also, as it is said, they were deposed on their return by the one who had sent them, although they claimed to have been coerced; and the others, though from the East, had been urged and drawn to it by those here, not sent by the patriarchs, since they did not even return afterward, plainly out of fear of that nation.

And those here did this so that they might the more persuade the heretically-minded people to think orthodoxly, on the pretense that a supposedly ecumenical synod had been convened.

But if you should ask why we did not object at that time, and why we accepted ordination after the synod from the lord Tarasios, we answer to you and to all: on the one hand, we were then acting in obedience, not knowing beforehand what was later made known to us; and on the other, we laid hold of a reasonable ground -- namely, Tarasios's claim that he had neither granted a penance, nor would, if he learned of such a case, concelebrate with any such person, but would even depose him.

And even though, as was quite evident, this was not actually the truth, nevertheless we, longing for concord, were content with what was said, having judged it right, in a doubtful matter, to incline toward the more humane course of peace, as the Theologian somewhere says.

And at the same time, because he had been accepted by the other churches on account of his orthodoxy and the manly zeal he had shown for it.

These things I have made known to you, child, that you may know what is proper, and that Sabas and his companions -- if it was for this reason, and not for some other unreasonable ones, that they were at odds with him -- had, and still have, good cause.

For just as we, under the cover of his statement that he would not receive such men but would even depose them, remained in communion with the presiding bishop, so those others, having plainly before them what had actually been done, reasonably insist upon the divine canon.

And no one can withstand them on this point, if indeed they should argue that Tarasios received by economy those who had ordained for money -- no, not even if Peter and Paul themselves should stand forth.

For they themselves set forth the canon, and they themselves declare: 'But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we preached to you, let him be anathema.'

{To Theophilos the abbot} I wished to write to your holiness sooner, but I was not able, being closely guarded.

But when the good God was pleased to grant both the means and the occasion, then I, in my lowliness, fulfilled my longing, and greet and embrace my spiritual father, truly and dearly beloved.

For although the rulers of this age have separated us bodily, they have not thereby dissolved our mutual concord and bond in God -- rather, indeed, they have confirmed it all the more.

...that our unworthy self remains unswerving in orthodox and God-pleasing steadfastness -- as it has shown itself, both before and since, to God and to men -- so that the persecution endured for piety's sake has itself borne witness together with us in our lowliness; even though those in power, out of a certain restraint, were unwilling to exile and imprison many, so that they might thereby seem to persuade the world that the dispute against them was confined to us alone, and that there were no others who resisted.

who are so many in number, within the very territory under their own authority, even though, whether from fear or from prudent restraint, they conceal themselves -- as one may hear the divine David crying out: 'I will count them, and they shall be more in number than the sand.'

For the impiety being committed is not something small and hidden, but exceedingly great and manifest to those who have understanding.

They have overturned, O most holy one, so far as lies in them, the dispensation of Christ, having decreed that the transgression of the Gospel in the adulterous union and adultery is a saving dispensation for the Church, under anathema upon those who do not accept it as such.

They have dissolved the Gospel by dissolving a single commandment, having declared that very dissolution to be a dispensation of God.

For if, as it is written, 'whoever shall keep the whole law, yet stumble in one point, has become guilty of all,' while these men declare the offense -- or rather the offenses -- of the adulterer and of the one who joined him in adultery, of his accomplices, and of all who cast in their lot with the adulterer (for it is not possible to separate those who committed the act from those who were led along with them) to be not guilty parties but 'stewards of God,' then he who declared them guilty has lied; and the saints, too, are then estranged from being 'stewards of God,' since no saint has ever transgressed God's law, nor can one who has transgressed be called a saint.

But they, having established a doctrine in the very act of transgression as inviolable, as though it were a law of God, and anathematizing those who do not agree with them in this -- though it is plain that the saints in heaven and on earth do not agree with adultery -- it is therefore evident that, by the dissolution of that one commandment of the Gospel, they have not only overturned the whole Gospel, having decreed synodically that it is a saving dispensation for the Church, and having established, so far as lies in them, an inviolable law that whenever any commandment is transgressed, that transgression should both become and be called a 'dispensation' -- but they have also, on their own reasoning, anathematized the saints who do not accept this, on the ground that not even God accepts it.

And, in short, why say more, when this letter cannot contain it all? A grievous false doctrine has been decreed in our Church -- this Moechian heresy -- which, together with the overturning of the Gospel, has also dissolved the sacred canons, through the acquittal of the very promoter of the adulterous union whom it had itself deposed.

For if they have set the Gospel at naught, what leisure is left them to trouble themselves over the sacred canons?

These things, then, together with my greeting, I have thought it necessary to remind your paternity, so that, knowing this to be a heresy, you may flee the heresy -- that is, the heretics -- neither communing with them nor commemorating them in your most devout monastery at the divine liturgy.

For the gravest threats have been uttered by the saints against those who condescend to them even to the point of sharing a meal.

But if your holiness should say, 'How is it that we did not say this at the time of the plundering, but instead we too were commemorating those in Byzantium?' -- let it be known that at that time there was not yet a synod, nor had the wicked doctrine and anathema yet been proclaimed.

And before these events, it was not safe to separate completely from the transgressors; rather, it sufficed only to avoid open communion with them, while commemorating them with due economy until the proper time.

But since the heretical impiety has now come out into the open through the synod, and become manifest, it is now necessary for your reverence too, together with all the orthodox, to speak boldly by not communing with those of ill doctrine, nor commemorating any of those found in the adulterous synod or those who share its views.

And indeed it is right, holy father, since in all things you truly bear the name 'lover of God,' that you should also love God in this matter.

...pronouncing, with a great and loud voice, upon those who hold communion with them.

And if your firmness does not stand guard over itself, who then shall be saved? And if the one who spoke boldly by the power of God, as a saint -- save for one instance of complete heresy -- should now, after that heresy, draw back, how will another dare so much as murmur? And if the monastic order does not consider all things as refuse -- I mean monasteries and everything connected with them -- how will a layman disdain wife, children, and the rest? Therefore I remind you, as the least of brothers and your child: let us not keep silent, lest we become a 'cry of Sodom'; let us not spare the things below, lest we lose the things above; let us not put a stumbling block before the Church of God, which, according to the saints, is defined even by the presence of three who are orthodox -- lest we be condemned by the sentence of the Lord.

And I, wretched as I am, say these things not for my own sake (for to me -- though it may be bold to say -- even to die for the truth is gain, and joy, and life, if only I might be strengthened by your holy prayers), but on account of the ancient and spiritual love between us, and for the common good.

For if the Son of God, the Lord and Master of all, offered himself up as a sacrifice for all to God the Father, how much more do we owe, and how much are we not obliged, to suffer and endure for his sake -- especially we who are monks, crucified by our renunciation, who have truly and not in vain renounced the world? For it is not possible to judge matters from outward appearance alone (for many put on masks and are not what they seem), but it is by their works that their outward forms are made clear.

If, then, there are any true monks in these present times, let them prove it by their works.

And it is the work of a monk not to tolerate, even in the slightest, that the Gospel be innovated upon, lest, by setting before the laity an example of heresy and heretical fellowship, they should have to render account for the laity's ruin.

The utmost humility of your holiness, in so graciously receiving my words, has made me ramble on at such length about this subject.

But you, O father, pray and intercede especially for me, your unsound and sinful, yet nonetheless devoted, admirer.

He who is imprisoned together with me likewise sends his greetings, and begs for your supplications.

{To my son Naukratios} Again another imprisonment for you, beloved child; but again, too, a monument of shame for those ill-named heretics, and for you an increase of heavenly contests and praises.

For this reason, on their account I must groan and weep, but on your account, rejoice and give thanks.

Or is it not the case that you become more approved through this transfer of imprisonment, just as gold is refined twice by the smelting fire? May you, then, O sacred child, be firmly rooted, and may you be found by the Master and Lord, in all things, pure and unadulterated, a truly useful vessel, fitted for every good work.

Bear then with patience the unaccustomed strangeness of your second guard (for I would not call him abbot or priest;

for no minister of God, and indeed no monk, would render service in military works, nor indeed would he have communion with one who so serves), but do tell me how he treats you;

for I think he is more difficult than the former one.

But whether it be this way or that, you nevertheless, my child, stand firm nobly, easing your griefs with the joy of hope, and winning for yourself, through looking to and holding fast to God alone who sees you, the attainment of dispassion found in solitude, casting off as refuse and winnowing away the chaff-like thoughts continually brought in by the sower of the tares.

As for the things you asked me to answer word by word concerning the heresies and baptisms, this exceeds the measure of a letter;

and again it would be superfluous to recount these things, which the God-bearing Epiphanius discovered and set forth in writing as no other of the Fathers has.

Consult, then, his sacred book concerning them, and there you will discern what you desire to learn.

May the good Eupreprianos bring it into your hands.

But concerning those who are baptized, I will answer more briefly.

The matter is divided into three.

For the Marcionites, the Tascodrougitai, the Manichaeans, and those aligned with them together, up to the Melchizedekites — twenty-five heresies in all — are baptized;

with chrism are received the Quartodecimans, the Novatians, the Arians, the Macedonians, the Apollinarians — five in all;

but those who are neither baptized nor anointed, but only anathematize their own heresy and every other, are the Meletians, the Nestorians, the Eutychianists, and those aligned with them down to the present heresy — these I am not, for the present, reducing to a number, on account of the great ramification of the Acephali and the excessive length this would give the letter.

As to your saying that the canon makes no distinction, but declares definitively that those ordained or baptized by heretics can be neither clergy nor faithful — consider this: that the apostolic canon called those men heretics who were not baptized, or do not baptize, into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And this we are taught from the divine utterance of Basil the Great;

for he says that heresies are those wholly broken off and alienated with respect to the faith itself; schisms are those who have become divided from one another on account of certain ecclesiastical causes and curable matters of dispute; and 'unlawful assemblies' (parasynagogai) are the gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and by uninstructed peoples.

And bringing forward one example of the first, he himself says to Saint Amphilochius:

'What reason then is there for the baptism of the Pepouzenes to be approved, who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? For those baptized into things not handed down to us have not been baptized.'

These, then, and those like them, the canon and the Fathers, as the divine Basil says, called heretics.

And of the second, Saint Basil again gives an example, saying:

'The Cathari — they too are among those who have split off.'

'And how, then, are both these and all the later ones called heretics? This we say and understand: the first are properly heretics, because they have committed impiety against the very essential point of our Trinitarian faith; the second are so called by an extension of the term, and as derived from the first, though nevertheless confessing that they believe in and baptize into a Trinity, each hypostasis having its own proper characteristic and none of the three being non-existent, even though they held heretical views on other points;'

Of the third, the saint himself again gives an example, as when someone, examined for a fault, was suspended from the liturgy and did not submit to the canons, but instead claimed for himself the presidency and the liturgical function.

And just as the second are called by the same name as the first, so too the third are called by the same name as the second.

Indeed, the ancients call the Meletians 'schismatics,' having been carried away together with Meletius the schismatic, although they were not of unsound doctrine;

for by anathematizing their own schism, as they say, they have been received into the catholic Church.

Heresy as a whole seems to be a certain chain woven together by demons, one link holding fast to another, all of impiety and godlessness hanging as it were from a single summit, even though they differ in name, in time, in place, in quantity, in quality, in power, and in activity.

since not even one and the same body has only a single member, but many, and the activities, powers, properties, positions, and honors of these in relation to one another are diverse.

Concerning your other questions:

the first, concerning a presbyter who is orthodox in belief but nevertheless, out of fear of persecution, commemorates the heretical bishop, has already been answered to you before; but yet again:

if he does not concelebrate with the heretic and does not administer the sacraments to such people, such a one is to be received for a common meal, for psalmody, and for the blessing of food (and this by way of economy), but certainly not for divine communion.

But one must inquire wherever the heresy is in every way prevailing; and as to being satisfied with those who merely offer a confession — I do not know whether this is not manifestly a deceit;

for as to your saying that we are taught by the Fathers not to make inquiry — that applies to a time when heresy is not raging, and to those who have not been manifestly condemned.

But it is rare now to find such a presbyter who does not mix and have communion with heretics.

Clearly one must obey, and go, and join in the psalmody, if the one who invites and the psalm-singers are orthodox, both parties guarding themselves from communion with heretics.

And indeed one may also celebrate the liturgy in the oratory, provided the one who holds it acknowledges that it is no longer served there by a heretic;

for it has already been said that, on account of the raging heresy, it is necessary to make inquiry in all things.

The third: if an orthodox person should receive a church from someone, and there is a custom of the people gathering there once or twice a year, with the heretic being commemorated in the liturgy —

psalmody there is to be permitted out of necessity, but not the celebration of the liturgy;

but if it is possible to discontinue the custom, then the liturgy may also be celebrated.

The fourth: if there is a church in which the celebrant commemorates the heretic, and the orthodox person has a consecrated altar upon a cloth or upon boards, is it fitting for him to set it up in that same church, while the one who commemorates is not present, and for the orthodox to concelebrate upon it?

It is not fitting; rather, if necessary, it should be done in a common house, in some place chosen as being purer.

The fifth: if, while on the road, an orthodox person should happen to be invited by some cleric or layman to a common meal, and it should be the hour for psalmody —

how is one to conduct oneself? I have said it, and I say it again:

while the heresy prevails and has not been overthrown by an orthodox council, it is necessary to make careful inquiry both with regard to divine communion and to common meals, and there is no occasion for shame or for thinking it untimely in these matters.

For simply to take bread from whoever happens to offer it does not require inquiry, nor to dine with him — perhaps privately — and to lodge there, unless he is already known beforehand to be in heresy or wickedness;

but concerning the rest, one must of necessity make inquiry.

The sixth: if, in passing, one finds an orthodox church near a city or village, ought one to pray there, or even lodge there, so as to avoid becoming a houseguest of laypeople?

One should both pray and lodge there, provided it stands alone;

but also, when a pressing hour of necessity urges, it is a matter of indifference to stay, as has been said, in the house of a layman or a cleric, and to dine there by oneself without inquiry and to take what is needed, provided that, as I said, the host is not already known to the guest to be impious or lawless.

But apart from necessity, it is not good to accept the aforesaid arrangements indiscriminately; rather one should make inquiry, lodge with the orthodox, and, if there is need, take provisions from him;

for thus the Lord commands through his saints.

To the presbyter and abbot you answered well, that those now ordained by the bishop lately found to be in the church should be barred from the liturgy, even though he says that the synod took place wrongly, and 'we are lost.'

For why, while confessing this, does he not flee the ruin by separating himself from the heresy, so that he might remain a bishop before God? And are his ordinations then to be accepted at once?

Or why, with the heresy standing before him, did the abbot bring the brothers forward for ordination by a heretic? If, then, the one who ordained them had set himself right, it would have been possible for them to minister at once; but since he is in the heresy through commemorating a heretic, even if he should say that he holds a sound mind, it is not possible that those whom he ordains should in truth be ministers of God.

But if a spirit of zeal for God has been kindled in the abbot, and he is eager to bind upon himself the crown of confession, let him not celebrate the liturgy in the church in which that man was enthroned, nor commemorate him as bishop.

And blessed is this man, becoming an example of salvation for many others also.

And once an altar has been set up in that same church, there is nothing to prevent the liturgy being celebrated there.

But what escaped my notice to indicate above, I will mention here:

...of the Fathers, as to what things are heresies as opposed to schisms, this has evidently thus been distinguished according to the following understanding: which is the canon that inexorably deposes one who has prayed together with a deposed person, as distinct from the canon concerning one who has taken part in an unlawful assembly;

namely, that he who, knowing that he is praying together with one who is admittedly deposed, is deposed at once — and reasonably so, having acted heedlessly and paid no attention to the canon; whereas he who did not suppose the one with whom he was carried away along with the crowd to be deposed, when, Basil says, he repents, is received back into the same rank.

But this too is often added in the saint's discourse: that even one who repents may not be received back into the same rank.

And this ruling has been issued as admitting of exceptions, whereas the apostolic canon applies necessarily and without exception.

That the falsely-named Christopher has again returned to his own vomit, I was not at all surprised, knowing his instability and lack of steadfastness;

but that Kledonios endured but a single day of imprisonment and blows from the impious for the sake of the truth, at this I was greatly astonished.

So that, if by the power of God he still perseveres even now, let it not be left undone by you and the other brothers to extend a hand to him, if indeed it is possible.

Concerning the aforementioned matters — I mean those who are baptized, those who are anointed with the holy chrism, and those who anathematize the heresy — I have not written as the divine Epiphanius arranged and enumerated the heresies, but as I found it noted in the margin by a certain diligent man of former times, who made his research and discovery from books in the church at Byzantium.

Brother Gregory sincerely greets you.

{To Silouanos and Eupreprianos, [my] children} Since I seek to learn about the brothers, my children, and since you yourselves also often wish to give information about them, I have considered it good, both for the sake of brevity and for greater concealment, to indicate them by means of the letters — that is, the twenty-four letters of the alphabet.

Alpha stands for our father; beta for the archbishop; gamma for Kalogeros; delta for Athanasios; epsilon for Barsanouphios; zeta for Nikolaos; eta for Sophronios; theta for Euthymios; iota for John; kappa for Dometianos; lambda for the steward (oikonomos); mu for Arsenios; nu for Akakios; xi for Meletios; omicron for Loukianos; pi for Epiphanios; rho for Litoes; sigma for Basil; tau for Euschemon; upsilon for Silouanos; phi for Eupreprianos; chi for Gregory; psi for Eustathios; and omega for myself.

So then, when a letter of the alphabet is placed in the heading, it is certainly known whose letter it is.

For example, the letter alpha stands for our father, and each letter likewise for its own person.