Letter of Theodore the Studite to the Monk Methodius (Mis-attributed in the Athenian Syntagma to Nicephorus)

This is the Studite’s letter to the monk Methodius, printed here separately because the Athenian Syntagma wrongly attributes it to Nicephorus.

Here is that letter of the Studite to the monk Methodius.

As great as is the desire of thy reverence to see our humility, so great, believe me, is our own desire to converse with thee face to face. But since it is written that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. 9:16), we ought to trust in Him and leave the matter to His care; and He, when He wills, will fulfil the desire of those who love Him (Ps. 145:19). For now it is needful to answer what must be answered to those questions[1] which our spiritual brothers Hilarion and Eustratius have set before us on behalf of thy reverence. And that what is to be said may be more easily understood, the several questions will first be set down, and to each question the answer will follow in order.

1st question. Presbyters who have been ordained at Rome, Naples, and in Lombardy without a general election and designation—are they to be received, communicated with, eaten with, and prayed with?

Answer. In time of heresy, out of unavoidable necessity, much that is established for a time of peace is not observed, as indeed we see was done by the most blessed Athanasius and the most holy Eusebius, who ordained strangers. And this same thing is seen to occur today too, in the present heresy. Accordingly, the presbyters mentioned, if they have not been publicly condemned, ought not to be rejected by us on the ground that they were wrongly ordained, but are to be received according to the four proposals (κατὰ τὰς τέσσαρας προτάσεις).

2nd question. Presbyters who have been ordained beyond the border, in Sicily—are they to be received?

Answer. This question is similar to the preceding, differing only as to place, and so the same question naturally receives the same answer as well.

3rd question. Ought one to enter, for the sake of prayer and the chanting of the holy hymns, into churches which have been defiled by priests who took part in the heresy?

Answer. One ought by no means, for the reasons stated, to enter such churches; for it is written: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (Matt. 23:38); and as soon as heresy is brought in, the angel presiding over that place at once withdraws, according to the word of the great Basil (Epistle 191), and such a church is turned into an ordinary house; and I will not enter the house of the wicked, says King David (Ps. 26:5), and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? asks the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:16).

4th question. May one chant and pray in churches which these same presbyters have defiled but which they no longer hold?

Answer. Certainly one may enter such churches and chant and pray in them, if the heretics no longer defile them and they are already occupied by the Orthodox. It is established in this matter that, with the appropriate prayer, a bishop or presbyter of sound faith should solemnly reopen the church in question; and once he has done this, there will be nothing amiss in the Liturgy being celebrated there. Let holy Athanasius serve as an example of this, who, when the Emperor Constantius asked him to grant this one favor—namely, to give the Arians in Alexandria a single church where they might assemble—consented on the condition that he too receive the same favor, that in Constantinople the Orthodox might be able to assemble in a single church which the Arians had previously held.

5th question. May one enter places where the bodies of saints repose and there pray and celebrate, if these places are held by defiled priests?

Answer. The canon does not permit entering the places where those holy bodies repose, as has already been said above, for it is written: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29)—except only when, from great need, one wishes to enter there for the kissing of the saints’ relics.

6th question. How are those to be received who have taken monastic vows from defiled priests?

Answer. Such may be received, if they confess that they have sinned, if they have undergone a penance for some time, and if a priest of sound faith afterward finds them worthy.

7th question. Monks and clerics who signed for the heresy—how are they to be received, without penance or with penance, if they declare that they will no longer perform the sacred ministry, and may we impose a penance upon such men?

Answer. They must certainly be received with suitable penances, for thus, having shown the fruits of repentance, they may be found worthy to be joined to the Orthodox body; nor can it be denied that we may impose a penance on such men, for it is written: Bear ye one another’s burdens.

8th question. Ought one to admit to the common table and to the chanting of the holy hymns those monks who, without distinction, associate, eat, and pray with everyone?

Answer. Since the Apostle says: that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (2 Thess. 3:6), how then should you yourselves not judge what is right? Accordingly, if they turn away from the sinful habit and undergo a suitable penance, they are to be received. But one must take care who these ‘everyone’ are, of whom you speak—whether heretics, or those known for an evil life? Of such the Apostle says: if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, and so forth, with such a one no not to eat (1 Cor. 5:11).

9th question. Presbyters who once or twice ate together with heretics, but were not in church communion with them, nor signed for the heresy—ought they to be admitted to the common table and the chanting of the holy hymns?

Answer. Here one must see whether the priests who ate did so with heretical priests or laymen, or again with those who believed rightly but were not in church communion with the heretics; and in any case the transgression is graver for sacred persons. In any case both the one and the other are to be received after a suitable penance, and admitted to the communion of meals and prayers.

10th question. As to laymen who signed for the heresy and entered into communion with heretics—may Orthodox laymen eat together with such laymen?

Answer. Indifference is the cause of evil, for the prophet says: they have put no difference between the holy and profane (Ezek. 22:26). Accordingly, the Orthodox, if they are zealous, ought not to allow such men to eat with them, if they have not first undergone a penance for the shameful signing and have not withdrawn from heretical communion. But since some, unwillingly and in order to escape danger, were defiled by heretical communion, such, if they confess that they did this for that reason, are to be admitted to the common table—save that even this must not be without due examination, but only once a general agreement is reached, one that will be to the benefit of both parties and not to the harm of their souls.

11th question. As to those who wish to be baptized, and no Orthodox priest or one without blemish can be found—may defiled or unknown priests baptize them, especially if death threatens?

Answer. Such a provision has been proclaimed here by confessor-hierarchs and superiors: to those presbyters who, on account of communion with heretics, are forbidden to perform the sacred ministry, it is permitted, if no priest of unblemished faith can be found, to baptize, and also to give communion consecrated by an unblemished priest; likewise they may confer monastic tonsure, read the prayers at funerals, read the Gospel at Matins, and also bless the water at Theophany—but, as has been said, only when circumstances compel it, and this so that the people should not be left entirely without hearing the Gospel and should not remain unbaptized. And if this is also to your liking, let the same provision be observed among you as well.

12th question. As to those who separated themselves in schism and are returning with repentance—should a penance be imposed and should they be received?

Answer. It has already been said above that a penance ought to be imposed, so it is superfluous to repeat the same thing.

13th question. If a bishop committed a transgression and for this was deposed by a council, and thereafter again ordained a presbyter, and that presbyter, having come to a monastery, performed the penance which his own superior had imposed on him for a set time, and after this performs the sacred ministry—we ask, ought such a priest to be received as blameless?

Answer. Since the impropriety is plain, you ought not even to have raised a question about such a transgression, for the Lord has said: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Luke 6:43). Accordingly, one who received a penance, whether from his own superior or even from any holy man whatsoever, cannot be considered so absolved as to be able to perform the sacred ministry, for he is neither a priest, nor is the one who absolved him a holy man; and in this way all the canonical institutions would be overturned and would come to nothing.

14th question. Concerning presbyters who were ordained by the Orthodox, and who neither signed nor had communion, but only ate together with the metropolitan Constantine.

Answer. This has been answered above. Whether the eating was with Constantine or with any other non-Orthodox person, he who ate must be absolved of the transgression by a suitable penance, and this not only so that he may afterward freely eat with those who have kept themselves pure, but also so that he may perform the sacred ministry, of which he has been found worthy. As to the measure of the penance, it is not possible to determine it exactly, on account of the character both of the person and of the circumstances; in any case a penance of two or three periods of forty days may well suffice.

15th question. Concerning presbyters likewise ordained by the Orthodox, who out of ignorance ate together with those presbyters who had eaten with the same metropolitan.

Answer. It is written: Whatever is done in ignorance shall be purified (Lev. 4:2); and accordingly they are not liable to any penance.

16th question. Concerning the Orthodox presbyters, namely Hilarion and the monk Eustratius—do they have authority to impose penances?

Answer. It has already been said above that a penance ought to be imposed. And since the question has been raised whether even one who is not a presbyter, when no presbyter is at hand, may impose a penance, it cannot be said that even a simple monk is forbidden to impose a penance.

17th question. Concerning a monk who out of ignorance received the sacred rank from a presbyter who had been ordained by a deposed bishop.

Answer. It has been said in another chapter that whatever is done in ignorance will be purified, and accordingly one need not withdraw from the common table with such a man, nor from anything else that can maintain concord and friendship.

And all this we have explained to thee to the best of our power, as to a man who is of one mind with us and our fellow-laborer; and do thou wisely make this known to the brethren who will ask thee about it. Not all men have faith (2 Thess. 3:2), and so this too is not set forth here for all, both because of the folly of those who sin and lest those who give commands fall into temptation. And as for the many and goodly gifts which thou, most pious one, hast sent, may they receive from God a worthy reward, and from us these two mites in remembrance of our friendship. Fare ye well in the Lord, most reverend brethren, and pray for us sinners, that we may be accounted worthy of all that is better and pertains to salvation (Heb. 6:9).