To renounce their two-fingered constitution and accept the three-fingered ecclesiastical constitution — they do not agree in any case. Having listened to this story with attention, His Holiness the Patriarch and His Eminence the Metropolitan said: "If you wish with all your soul to join the Catholic Church, then you should without any doubt and with all sincerity accept all the apostolic traditions and all the customs of the Church, without any exception; then the Church would receive you into her communion as beloved children with great joy.

But let it not happen that the Church becomes the culprit of the schism! Therefore, know firmly that the Church of God cannot agree to your proposal under any circumstances, and you do not ask more than we do about it, as an impossible thing, but go to your place and no longer remain in the monastery in which you are now, for you, as disobedient to the Church, cannot have communion with the Orthodox monks living there." Hearing such an answer from His Holiness the Patriarch and His Eminence the Metropolitan, the monks departed and, returning to their monastery, grieved greatly against Hieromonk Hosea, who had deceived them with his promise, and, heaping upon him heavy reproaches, returned to their schismatics to their original place of residence.

To this I answer you: in my opinion, the schism can be twofold, either someone himself is in schism, or he leads others into schism, tearing them away from the Church with his God-fighting teaching. Whoever is in such a schism, even if he has done all the good deeds, if he had shed his blood as a martyr for Christ, which undoubtedly surpasses all good works, will in no case be able to atone for this mortal sin, i.e. the schism. If a person cannot atone for his schism even with the blood of a martyr, then what hope can there be for salvation for him, and how can a priest resolve it at confession without his true conversion to the Church, and vouchsafe him Communion of the Holy Mysteries? This is in no way possible, and in any case it will be contrary to the truth of the Holy Church of God. I am not quoting your next question verbatim, but only conveying its essence. The oath and anathema which in former times were conciliarly imposed by the Eastern patriarchs on those who oppose the Catholic Church, i.e., on those who are baptized with two fingers or who do not submit in any other way, was this anathema later permitted by any Eastern council or not? And can any bishops, apart from the Council and without the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, resolve this oath? And if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the will of the Eastern Patriarchs, and it is not resolved by the Eastern Patriarchs, then will not some of the Christians in resistance and in their unrepentance die in this conciliar anathema? Woe to us! And will the church commemoration be pleasant for this? Do not deprive us of a true explanation of this either.

Answer: An oath or anathema against those who oppose the catholic Church, i.e. against those who are baptized with two fingers or in some other way resist and do not submit, being conciliarly imposed by the Eastern patriarchs, must remain by the grace of Christ firm, unshakable and unresolvable until the end of time. You also ask: Did any Eastern Council later permit the anathema imposed or not? I answer: Could there be such a Council, with the exception of some one contrary to God and the Holy Church, which would assemble to refute the truth and affirm falsehood? In the Church of Christ there will never be such an wicked Council. You also ask whether any bishops, apart from the Council and the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, can permit such an oath? I answer: this is impossible; For God is not disorder, but peace. Know firmly that all bishops receive the same grace of the Holy Spirit at their ordination and are obliged, as the apple of their eye, to preserve the purity and purity of the Orthodox faith, as well as all the apostolic traditions and canons of the holy Apostles, the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the God-bearing Fathers, which are maintained by the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. From the same Holy Spirit they received the authority to bind and loose according to the order which the Holy Spirit had established through the holy Apostles in the holy Church. The bishops did not receive such authority from the Holy Spirit to destroy the apostolic traditions and church canons, so it is impossible for either the bishops or the Eastern patriarchs to resolve the above-mentioned anathema against the opponents of the Catholic Church, as it was correctly and in accordance with the holy Councils, and if anyone were to attempt to do this, it would be contrary to God and the Holy Church. You also ask: if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the Eastern Patriarchs, then is it not permitted by the Eastern Patriarchs? I answer: Not only is it impossible for any bishop without the Eastern Patriarchs, but also for the Eastern Patriarchs themselves, to resolve this oath, as has already been sufficiently said, for such an anathema is eternally insoluble. You ask: "Will not some of the Christians in their resistance and unrepentance die in this conciliar oath? I answer: In this question of yours there are three perplexities for me. The first is "some of the Christians." Second: "Will they not die in their resistance and unrepentance in this conciliar anathema?" In the first case, I wonder what kind of Christians are these who oppose the Catholic Church without any repentance? Such people are not worthy to be called Christians, but according to a just ecclesiastical judgment they must be called schismatics. True Christians obey the Holy Church in everything.

My third perplexity relates to your words: woe to us! These words of yours put into my soul the thought that you are not those certain Christians who impenitently oppose the Church, and who fear and tremble at the anathema imposed by the Catholic Church on such opponents, and therefore you so carefully ask about it, whether some Eastern council has not permitted it? Fearing to die in anathema and unable to endure the constant pangs of conscience, you cry out: woe to us! If you are true Orthodox Christians, in all things obeying the Church, which gave birth to you by holy baptism, and who are baptized according to the tradition of the holy apostles with the first three fingers of your right hand, and ask me not about yourself, but about others, then the above-mentioned anathema does not apply to you, and therefore you should not have said of yourself so pitifully: woe to us! These words of yours have inspired me with the opinion of you that has been said above, which may be extinguished from my soul! I beseech you, through an incident known to you, to give me a perfect confirmation of your wisdom, for we cannot have any communion with those who oppose the Holy Church and are baptized with two fingers. You also ask: will it be pleasant for them to be commemorated by the Church? I answer: If you speak of those who oppose the Catholic Church, and of those who die in their resistance and unrepentance, then believe me that the Church's commemoration of such will not only be unpleasant, but will also be contrary to both God and the Holy Church, and a priest who dares to commemorate them according to such sins mortally. Commemoration for the dead is the most important part of the bloodless sacrifice offered for Orthodox Christians, both living and dead. If someone, even from among Orthodox Christians, clearly sins and does not repent, then the Holy Church forbids him to offer a bloodless sacrifice until he completely forsakes his sin and sincerely repents. If the Church does not allow the offering of a bloodless sacrifice for an Orthodox open sinner who does not repent, then can she allow it to be offered for the deceased without any repentance in opposition to the Holy Church? He can't. About an obvious sinner, that it is not fitting for him to partake of the Holy Mysteries and it is impossible to offer a bloodless sacrifice for him, St. Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, testifies in the following words: "There is no place for unbelievers or those who think differently. Therefore, it is in no way proper for any priest to offer sacrifice or make a commemoration of him who clearly sins and does not repent, since this offering is for his condemnation, just as the reception of the terrible Mysteries is unworthy and without repentance for those who partake of communion, as the divine Paul says" (Corinthians 11:29). The same Simeon, about whom particles should be offered: "Priests should not accept offerings of the faithful who have obviously sinned, as it happens, but first demand repentance. For communion is an offering particle, and it is not fitting, being unworthy, to partake of this sacrifice." The same Simeon that the priest should carefully observe about whom he brings a particle: "

For there is mental communion, and if a person turns out to be diligent in reverence, or even if he is one of the sinners, but repented, then invisibly, as we have said, he receives the communion of the Spirit with his soul. In many cases, as we have seen, he also receives bodily benefits. Wherefore the priest ought to be careful not to accept an offering from every one who wills, nor to bring it to those who sin without any shame, lest he be condemned with them." Hitherto the words of St. Simeon, or rather, the words of the entire holy Catholic Church, for he speaks in accordance with the conciliar wisdom. From these words it follows that those who have died without repentance and in opposition to the Holy Church should in no way be commemorated by the Church. He who dares to make a commemoration of such will give a terrible answer for this, before Christ God on the day of His dreadful judgment.

Your next question: Is it possible to bury and commemorate a person who died in a church schism according to the Christian rite, or is this completely unacceptable due to his unbelief?

I answer: In your previous questions, you call those who oppose the Holy Church and disobey her commands not schismatics, but certain Christians; In your present question, however, you openly ask about the one who died in schism, as if the latter were incomparably worse than those mentioned above. We do not separate the above-mentioned from the schismatics in any way. If this one who died in schism is worse than those mentioned above, then is he not one of those who are called Khlysts or self-immolators, and whom we no longer call schismatics, but completely atheists? But whatever the schismatic nature of the deceased about whom you are asking, in order to resolve this question I will quote to you the answer of His Holiness Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, to His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of All Russia (from the book "Tablet" at the end): "We have received the tradition from the beginning of the faith from the holy Apostles and Holy Fathers, and the holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, to make the sign of the honorable cross with the first three fingers of the right hand, and which of the Orthodox Christians does not make the cross in this way, he is a heretic, and we have him excommunicated from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and anathematized." Notice from this answer of His Holiness the Patriarch that if any Orthodox Christian does not make the sign of the honorable cross on himself according to the tradition of the Holy Apostles, then for this alone he becomes a heretic and is anathematized. And he who died in schism, of whom you ask, is not exactly the same as he who is not baptized with three fingers? If the one who died in schism is the same as this one, then judge for yourselves, is it possible to bury and commemorate him according to the Christian rite?

Further, you ask: some priests, indulging human self-will, confess and marry according to the old trebnik and please the schism contrary to Church tradition; Will this not violate the law or hinder the action and performance of the sacraments of the Church? For even those who are ecclesiastical, both spiritual and temporal, are deceived by this through self-stumbling and self-conceit, and for us there is great sorrow, temptation and doubt.

I answer: Such priests as schismatics are more than those man-pleasers "whose bones God has scattered," mortally sin before God: for by indulging human self-will and pleasing schism contrary to Church traditions, they dare to perform the church sacraments according to the old trebnik. Such, if they do not repent with all their hearts before God and do not refrain from these actions of theirs, will be put to shame on the day of God's dreadful judgment. If the above-mentioned priests are true Christians and have received ordination from an Orthodox bishop, then although they, indulging human self-will, perform the sacrament according to the old trebnik, nevertheless the holy sacraments remain perfect sacraments, and of this there is no need to doubt; and the priests, as seducers of many Christian souls, will be guilty of the judgment of God. For according to the word of the Lord: "If any man offend one of these little ones that believeth in Him, let him not eat, let the millstone be upon his neck, and be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Matt. 18:6). These priests, appointed by the Holy Church as pastors and vigilantes of the verbal flock of Christ, should obey the Church in everything, as their true mother, use the corrected service book in the celebration of the sacraments, and not perform them to the great sorrow and temptation of the Christian people, contrary to the Church decree, according to the old service books set aside by the Church. They should also have fled with all their hearts and avoided all communion with the schismatics, and with tears persuaded others to do the same. For such teaching and instruction of the Christian people they would have been worthy to receive a reward from Christ God on the day of His righteous recompense.

Further, you ask: some priests have separated themselves from the Church and from their bishops and live with schismatics; whether any sacraments can be performed from such priests, i.e. baptism, confession, wedding, etc. church shrines, or will grace not follow in any case? Be pleased to inform me of this also, for the sake of the catholic truth itself.

I answer: priests who have separated themselves from the Church and from their bishops and live with schismatics, become one with the schismatics, and together with them they blaspheme the Orthodox faith and the entire Church of God and the Most Holy Mysteries of Christ and all the sacraments of the Church and the entire hierarchical and priestly rank. Such priests are no longer worthy to be called priests for all these blasphemy, but they are false priests, or rather, not priests. They are excommunicated from the Holy Church, alien to it, expelled from the priesthood by their bishops, and therefore how can they perform the holy sacraments of the Church, or how can the sacraments of the Church be performed by such people? This is absolutely impossible, for the Holy Spirit does not perform the sacraments of the Church through obvious opponents of God, who are connected not only with their own bishops, but also with the entire Church. The power of the episcopal bond can be understood from the following: the reliquary of a certain holy martyr stood in the holy altar, and every time the deacon exclaimed: "Come forth ye catechumens," by the invisible power of God it proceeded from the Church and remained in the narthex of the church until the very dismissal, after which it returned to the church again and stood in its usual place. The reason for this was that this holy martyr was bound by his elder for some kind of disobedience. When the elder came and gave him permission, the martyr's shrine immediately ceased to leave the church and stood unshakably in its place on the altar. Oh, how powerful is the divine obedience, when the very blood of the martyr, the disciple of the elder, poured out for Christ, could not resolve the binding of the elder, until the elder who bound him himself had loosed it! Thus, if the bondage of the elder, who was not a bishop, but a simple monk, was so strong, then how much stronger was the bond of the bishop! For only the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, were given and are given the most supernatural grace to bind and loose from Christ the Saviour, Who said to His disciples: "If you bind on earth, they will be bound in heaven, and if you loose on earth, they will be loosed in heaven." Thus, being bound from their bishops, the above-mentioned priests are bound eternally both on earth and in heaven; and expelled from their bishops, they have become alien and alien to the grace of the priesthood and all priestly rites, and cannot perform a single sacrament. Orthodox priests, justly expelled from the priesthood for great sins, are ordained in the place of the laity and together with them are participants in church prayers and commune of the Divine Mysteries. And if they dared to serve the Divine Liturgy or perform other sacraments of the Church, then, like rotten members, they are completely cut off from the Church according to the twenty-eighth canon of the Holy Apostles.

In the book of rules, printed in the Moldavian language, I found one question and an answer suitable for my answer to this question of yours to me. The question of St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople: "If a priest is ordained by a deposed bishop, can he serve priestly services or not?" Not having a bishop, he cannot give the priesthood. And if he does ordain someone, he remains unordained and cannot serve either the Liturgy or other sacred rites, for he is a simple layman. A man who has a thing can give it to another; but if he does not have a thing, how will he give?"

From the above-quoted answer of St. Theodore the Studite it is clear that it is just, according to the sacred rules, that deposed priests, if they dare to perform priestly services after this, are completely cut off from the Church.