Osipov A.I., prof.

The question to be considered in this article is not one of the secondary issues of Christian teaching, nor is it of purely theological interest; on the contrary, it concerns each individual confession, denomination, church and even each of its members.

This is a question of apostolic succession. This article was written by me more than 15 years ago.

In simple terms, the essence of the question is this - “If any modern local church cannot trace historical continuity in the ordination of its ministers, then does it belong to the Church of Christ and all those baptized in it by its ministers are truly partakers of God’s grace?” In other words, do such churches have the fullness of Divine grace, or is it only partially or completely absent?

This topic is widely discussed, especially nowadays in Russia. There are several reasons for this. But the main one is the expansion of the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), its apologetics with the Protestant and evangelical heterodox churches of Russia.

The doctrine of the transfer of grace through ordination in the presence of apostolic historical succession has its roots both in the history of Christianity and in the theological understanding of the issue of the role of Tradition. That is why, one way or another, we have to touch on these two issues, and only then move on to considering the arguments for and against.

So, the historical aspect.

Although with some reservations, most theologians who study the history of the formation of Christian teaching will agree that apostolic succession was first discussed with the emergence of the Gnostic heresy in the 2nd century AD. and above all Tertullian. Although before this there were Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and some others, they did not express this idea so clearly in their epistles. It seems that it would be quite appropriate to consider some quotations from their letters in order to try to understand their understanding of this issue and to understand whether they taught about grace through ordination or not. One caveat should be made here - such a consideration will not be so deep due to the lack of space in this article and the breadth of topics covered in the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church.

Clement of Rome

At the end of the first century, a serious internal division arose again in the Corinthian church, namely a dispute between the young members of the church and the old (similar to the modern state of affairs). In the words of Clement himself, “young, inglorious, arrogant, impudent, proud” people carried out a “criminal and wicked rebellion” aimed at overthrowing people “respectable, glorious, reasonable and elder” (chap. 1 and 47). Namely, the church removed local bishops from ministry.

The introduction of this epistle speaks of the flourishing state of the Corinthian community before the outbreak of strife, contrasting with its present state (chap. 1-3). This is followed by a presentation of Christian morality in the form of an exhortation (chap. 4-36); the rationale for the church system is given and the unity of Christians is spoken of, which should be a testimony to the pagans; intra-Christian discord is sharply condemned; by the way, it is indicated that they caused the death of the apostles Peter and Paul (chap. 37-57). The message ends with prayer and blessing (chap. 58 - 59).

And here is the structure of his argument.

First, he writes that the Church lives by love, as a single body of Christ, whose members entrust their will into the hands of God and obey each other. To prove that both bishops and deacons were “foretold” in the Old Testament, he refers to Holy Bible, arguing that the law of Moses and the law of Christ (passed on through the apostles) support a division of duties among the ministers of the church. The resignation of conscientious and faithful bishops is a grave sin (chap. 40-44), because the apostles chosen by Christ appointed the first bishops and transferred the ministry to them.

In general, upon careful and impartial reading, it becomes clear that Clement wanted to show the rebel believers the established order in the church and that they must obey him for the sake of maintaining peace and unity in the church and out of love for each other. Moreover, for Clement there is no difference between bishops and presbyters - for him these are the same people (chap. 42). It is clear that the idea of ​​a triple ministry (bishop, presbyter and deacon) is later and is not confirmed in the teaching of the Apostles and the early Fathers of the Church (i.e. their direct disciples).

Some people see Clement of Rome teaching about apostolic succession in his 1st letter to the Corinthians. For example, the following quote:

“The order of clergy in the church was established by Christ: bishops and deacons were appointed apostles. The apostles were sent to preach the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. Christ was sent from God, and the apostles from Christ; both were in order according to the will of God. So, having accepted the command, the apostles... went to preach the coming kingdom of God. Preaching in various countries and cities, they appointed the first-born of the believers, after spiritual testing, as bishops and deacons for future believers. And this is not a new establishment; for many centuries before it was written about bishops and deacons. This is what the Scripture says: “I will appoint them bishops in righteousness and deacons in faith (Is. 60:17)” (chap. 42)

Yes it is. But for Clement, this continuity lies in the fact that order is maintained in the church and bishops are appointed to serve “by spiritual test” with the consent of the Church (42-44 chapters), who continue the work of the apostles - preaching the Gospel and teaching the believers in the Christian faith. Those. he speaks of continuity of ministry, its essence and teaching, but not of power and grace.

He does not teach that this succession supposedly consists in the fact that bishops receive the special grace of the priesthood. Because in the same letter he writes that grace and gifts are given only by God and all believers are ministers to each other, each in accordance with his spiritual gifts and calling (chap. 38).

Irenaeus of Lyon (died about 200)

Quite often the name of this particular person is associated with the development and substantiation of the doctrine of grace of succession. The basis for such arguments is his book “Against Heresies” (full title “The Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge”), which he wrote against the teachings of the Gnostic Valentinus and her followers.

Marcion (who led the Gnostic sect, to which some of the local church of Irenaeus had converted), Valentinus and Basilides (one of the leaders of this movement) and their followers counted themselves among the Christians who declared that they preached the apostolic doctrine as Jesus handed it down To my students. The essence of all their statements boiled down to the fact that they possessed a special higher, more spiritual truth, secret knowledge, which was inaccessible to ordinary Christians, but belonged only to the elect. It was against this view that the book “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus of Lyons (3:3-4) was written.

Irenaeus writes that if the apostles had such secret knowledge, they would certainly have passed it on to those whom they trusted more than others and appointed to serve in local churches - the bishops. It was for this reason that he considered it important that for all bishops their succession from the apostles could be established. In general, he was not the first to come up with a similar idea about the succession of bishops, since lists of this nature appear already in the early antignostic Egesippius (Evsenius, “Ecclesiastical History”, 4.22.2-3). However, Irenaeus developed this theme further and gave as examples the Roman Church (for which he even gives a list of its first bishops, which is somewhat controversial) and Polycarp of Smyrna. He says that in order to show the wrongness of those who attend “unlawful meetings”, it is enough, firstly, to show the path of teaching from the apostles to one of the large churches, for example, the Roman one, and it was founded by Peter and Paul, and, in -secondly, to check what faith was preached in it by the successors of the apostles - the bishops - and the successors of the bishops.

Irenaeus had a special connection with the apostolic era. He personally heard the sermons of Polycarp of Smyrna, who not only exemplified the true faith, but also accompanied John, Philip and the other apostles on their wanderings. It is not surprising that Irenaeus insists on the obligatory succession of teachers in the Church and their appointment as bishops. The Good News as presented by Irenaeus and the idea of ​​succession of bishops added to it form a single theory (“Against Heresies”, 3.3.4):

“Everyone who wants to see the truth can freely contemplate in every church the traditions of the Apostles, which have become the property of the whole world. We can list everyone, from the bishops installed by the Apostles in the churches to the followers today. They not only did not teach, but did not even know anything about these crazy ideas of heretics. Let us assume that the Apostles knew some secrets, which they were in the habit of imparting to the elect privately and in secret. There is no doubt that they would pass on this knowledge to people, especially those entrusted with the church. For they wanted their successors to be perfect and impeccable in everything.” (Against heresies, ch. 3:3-1)

It is worth noting the most important thing - Irenaeus speaks only about the transmission of the apostolic teaching through successors (bishops) and the dissemination of this teaching. He never states in his work, or even gives any good reason to think, that he teaches any kind of apostolic grace as a special gift imparted to bishops through ordination.

Tertullian (born around 160 - 220)

Tertullian received an excellent training in the field of Roman rhetoric, was well read, deeply versed in Stoic philosophy and the Christian Bible, and expressed his thoughts clearly and convincingly. More important is that he came to faith at a conscious age. Perhaps one can apply to him his own saying “fiunt non nascuntur” (“they become Christians, but are not born”). He subsequently became a presbyter in Carthage.

The range of issues that he considered in his works are devoted primarily to practical Christian life.

And although in 202 he deviated into the heresy of the Montanists, before that he already managed to write several works in defense of the teaching of the conciliar Church against heresies, which largely coincided with the views of Irenaeus.

For our consideration, his treatise “Injunctions against heretics” is of greatest interest.

He wrote the following in it:

“Let them show the beginnings of their churches, and declare the line of their bishops, which would continue with such succession that their first bishop had as his culprit or predecessor one of the apostles, or the apostolic men who had long treated the apostles. For the apostolic churches keep their lists (of bishops) in exactly this way: Smyrna, for example, represents Polycarp, appointed by John, the Roman - Clement, ordained by Peter; likewise, other churches indicate those men whom, as elevated to the episcopate by the apostles themselves, they had among themselves as branches of the apostolic seed.”

In his polemics with heretics (Gnostics), Tertullian cites apostolic succession as one of his most important arguments in defense of his faith and beliefs - which he sets as a criterion for the truth of the Church.

But, again, like Irenaeus, if you read into the meaning of his arguments, it becomes clear that he does not say anything about the continuity of ordination, but only about the continuity of the apostolic tradition. For the keeping of such a tradition guaranteed correct teaching, but the dogma of ordination and its keeping did not guarantee anything.

Therefore, both Irenaeus and Tertullian, when they spoke about the succession of churches, they spoke about the continuity in the transmission of intact apostolic teaching, which testified to the truth of this or that church. And that the teaching there was true was confirmed by the presence of bishops (presbyters) who had continuity in teaching, confirmed by their ordination. But they did not say anything about the transmission of the grace of the priesthood through ordination, or anything similar, as stated in the later invented dogma of ordination.

Moreover, Tertullian himself first of all set one of the indicators of truth - the rule of faith, i.e. the professed teaching of the local church, since all the (correct) communities existing at that time could not boast of succession from the apostles. That is why he talks so much about the Roman Church as a role model, declaring that the apostolic Church spread throughout the entire Earth, from Rome the teaching of the apostles came “to us (Africans) and to the Greek provinces - it is already in Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus ; Now the power of Rome has strengthened even more, for we know that there the Apostle John suffered torment, and the Apostles Peter and Paul died from the abuse of persecutors” (chap. 36)

Conclusion

The doctrine of apostolic succession appeared as a response to the growing Gnostic sects, and was completely justified at that time.

Its essence was that such continuity made it possible to maintain order and decorum in the church, its internal structure and functioning as a body (Clement of Rome), as well as the true teaching transmitted and preserved through bishops (presbyters), who, after testing and instruction in the true faith , ordained to ministry, so that they continued to carry the apostolic teaching further, helping believers to live righteously, and protecting the church from erroneous interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. (Irenaeus and Tertullian).

But we do not find anything in their works about the transfer of the grace of the priesthood through ordination, as they say in the modern teaching on ordination. Even in the 1st canon of the Holy Apostles (2nd-3rd centuries), where it is said that “bishops should be appointed by two or three bishops,” such a mention was made in order to preserve the truth of the teaching and its transmission.

Tradition

The second point, and a very important one, is the attitude towards Tradition, because it is in it, namely in later centuries, that we find the teaching about the “grace of ordination.” The issue of Tradition and the attitude towards it is very serious and requires in-depth research, due to its complexity and the differences in the views of theologians on this subject. We must immediately admit that this article will present one of the points of view.

Modern historical churches (for example, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox) find their understanding of Tradition, first of all, in the work of St. Basil (4th century). He says:

“Of the dogmas and sermons observed in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from apostolic tradition, by succession in secret. Both have the same power for piety, and no one, even if little versed in church institutions, will contradict this. For if we dare to reject unwritten customs, as if they are not of great importance, then we will imperceptibly damage the Gospel in the most important way, or, moreover, we will leave the Apostolic Sermon as an empty name without content. For example, let us first mention the first and most general thing: so that those who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ are marked by the image of the cross, who taught the Scriptures? Which Scripture taught us to turn to the east in prayer? Which saint left us the words of invocation in the breaking of the bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing? For we are not content with those words that the Apostles and the Gospel mention, but before them and after we pronounce others, as having great power for the sacrament, having received them from the unwritten teaching... (Blessed Basil, Rule 97, on the Holy Spirit, ch. .27)

The testimony of Holy Tradition is necessary, according to the Orthodox Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, for:

“We are confident that all the books of Holy Scripture have been handed down to us from apostolic times and are of apostolic origin; necessary for the correct understanding of individual passages of Holy Scripture and for opposition to heretical reinterpretations of it; necessary to establish the dogmas of the Christian faith in view of the fact that some truths of faith are expressed quite definitely in Scripture, while others are not entirely clear and precise and therefore require confirmation by the Holy Apostolic Tradition.”

Catholic theologians are also in complete symphony with Pomazansky. These are their words.

Catholic theologian Gabriel Morgan suggests the following classification Legends:

Dogmatic tradition is the truth revealed by God in Holy Scripture even before the death of the last apostle. Dogmatic tradition is usually called "primary (or original) revelation."

Disciplinary (or educational) tradition consists of the practical and liturgical rites of the church in both apostolic and post-apostolic times, without being part of the divine revelation of Holy Scripture. Disciplinary revelation is usually called "minor revelation"

“So, tradition,” says the French Catholic theologian Georges Tavard, “was an excess of words that flowed beyond the boundaries of Holy Scripture. It was neither separate from Holy Scripture nor identical with it. Its content was “another scripture” through which Christ, as the Word, made Himself known.”

Another theologian, C. Schatzgeier (1463-1527), whose views are very similar to what charismatics proclaim today, said: “Personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is possible daily. Having once become known, it is as binding as the teaching from the mouth of Christ Himself.”

As can be seen from the above quotes, the essence of Tradition is to supplement the Holy Scriptures and interpret it, i.e. essentially manage it.

It should be noted that the Tradition began to be written down in the 4th century, the era of freedom and triumph of the Church. A time that is characterized by the beginning of the nationalization of the church and the entry of quite a few of its bishops into the political struggle.

In addition, in the Tradition itself we find mutual contradictions and errors, thoughts sometimes completely contrary to Holy Scripture.

Here are at least a few examples.

Irenaeus of Lyons pointed out that according to Tradition, which he and other Christians of that time accepted, it was known that Jesus preached for 10 years, while historical facts, which all Christians now accept, talk about 3 years. Or the words of Justin about the replacement of words in the Torah by the Jews (although they did not change many of the words he cited). However, this list could be continued further. It is better to quote one Orthodox professor, a specialist in Tradition, the priest of Preobrazhensky:

“The unsatisfactoriness of tradition is revealed where it is only a matter of fact, and not about the teaching of faith. The rule of faith, containing the members of Christian teaching, was also accepted according to tradition, but its faithfulness is confirmed by the fact that wherever the Gospel was preached it was the same. Of vital importance, it was zealously observed by the church. But the tradition regarding HISTORICAL DETAILS, being of a more ordinary nature, was freely circulated and changed in the mouths of individual people.”

Disagreements or obvious contradictions within the Tradition itself also occur.

We can also find many contradictions with Holy Scripture, be it the question of the number of bishops for ordination or their marital status. Or here is an example of the incorrect eschatological understanding of the same Irenaeus of Lyons:

“As the elders say, those awarded heavenly stay will go to heaven, others will enjoy the pleasures of paradise, others will own the beauty of the city... They say... some will be taken to heaven, others will live in paradise, others will live in the city... This is, according to the elders , disciples of the apostles, distribution and order of those being saved” (Against heresies. 5, 36, 1-2).

You can take Metropolitan Philaret, where in His lengthy Catechism he writes:

“The apostles, to communicate the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the baptized, used the laying on of hands” (answer to question 274)

A little further down he says:

“The successors of the apostles introduced confirmation instead, following the example in the Old Testament” (answer to question 309)

All this suggests that if we are guided in our understanding of Scripture by Tradition, we fall into the trap of defining God with human thoughts. After all, Tradition, being written by people about whom we can no longer say, as the ap. Peter in relation to Scripture - “the holy men of God spoke it, being moved by the Holy Spirit” - does not have the infallibility and perfection of Scripture.

That is why we need to define Tradition in the light of Scripture, and not vice versa, as is done in some churches. This general and erroneous conclusion was expressed by the famous Orthodox theologian S.N. Bulgakov. : “Holy Scripture must be understood on the basis of Holy Tradition”

Arguing that previous believers (fathers, theologians) were better than us (which is partly quite fair), we still belittle the role of the Holy Spirit and the Bible itself, which was written for all generations and centuries. It cannot be that it was understood correctly then, but cannot be understood now. After all, the Holy Spirit, the Interpreter and Expositor of Scripture, has not changed and He does the same work.

Deacon Kuraev’s view of Tradition as an “image of Communion with God,” which “is neither a retelling of the apostolic words (for in this case it is only a repetition of Scripture), nor a tradition of their interpretation,” deserves a separate comment. Here is his quote from the work “Three Answers about Tradition”:

The fact is that Tradition is needed not only in order, firstly, to preserve the Apostolic Scriptures, but, secondly, to deepen their understanding. The third and most important purpose of Tradition is to use the apostolic understanding of Scripture. And as soon as we use this word - use - it becomes clear that Tradition has to do not so much with theory as with practice.

Tradition is the assimilation by each person of that pan-human gift of salvation and deification that was given to humanity in the Gospel “fullness of times.” Tradition is Christ returning to people in the Sacraments. This is what the last Byzantine theologian Nicholas Kavasila says about it: “The sacraments are the way, this is the door that He opened. Passing this path and this door, He returns to people."

Those. Tradition, in his opinion, is a kind of living experience of communication with Christ, walking in His Spirit, the life of His Body, it is, as it were, Himself, received in the liturgies. Therefore, it will always have an unfinished character and will continue until the day of the Lord, His Second Coming.

But here, too, the question arises about the completeness of the authoritative Scripture and the possible authority of the very experience of communication with God of this or that saint.

This approach opens the way for all kinds of additions and the absence of authority for the Church itself, except for itself. After all, experience stems from it and is used by it.

All this shows that building your theology on Tradition and basing your argumentation only on it is a little dangerous and can lead to false conclusions. That is why the teaching about the “grace of ordination” must be sought not in Tradition, but in Holy Scripture, which alone should be the highest authority in relation to the Church of Christ and its practice. And if any local church follows only Scripture, it does not at all neglect the 2 thousand-year experience of the life of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, embodies in its practice what the Lord wanted to see, taking an example from previous generations, receiving edification also from Tradition , and guided in everything by the Holy Scriptures.

Scripture

I think that there is no need to prove the completeness of Scripture - theologians of previous centuries have already done this. It is this, being sufficient and suitable for any situation in the life of the Church of Christ (and the answer to a new question must stem from Scripture, and not from Tradition or a new tradition created), that can give clear answers (or principles) to any questions in the life of the Church of Christ.

In discussions on the issue of apostolic succession, most often only 2 or 3 passages from the Bible are heard, which are cited as irrefutable arguments in defense of it. These are the ones that should be considered.

1 Tim. 4:14 and Tim.1:6

There are three important facts in this text:

• Timothy received the gift through ordination
• The "hands of the priesthood" were laid upon him
• The gift must be warmed up and cannot be neglected.

From these two texts it is concluded that the gift of ministry is imparted through the laying on of hands. This is how a person supposedly becomes a priest, i.e. a servant of God who can perform the sacraments. Any person, even knowing the apostolic teaching in its entirety, but not ordained, cannot perform them, as he does not have grace. Those. ordination serves as a conductor of, although invisible, but real and tangible Divine power.

Is it so?

The Apostle calls on Timothy to kindle the gift that is in him and not neglect it, that is, so that this gift is not neglected. That is why this gift could not in itself be the ministry of a bishop or the grace of the priesthood (after all, all believing priests are before the Lord - 1 Pet. 2:9).

For, as a bishop (and Timothy was such by position), he had to constantly perform his ministry and therefore it would be unnatural to speak to him about negligence (after all, none of us would say that Timothy was a negligent minister after reading Philippians , where the apostle testifies about him as a man who seeks what is pleasing to Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:20-21)). After all, it was he who the apostle trusted, perhaps even more than all the rest of his employees.

In addition, in 1 Timothy chapter 2, which lists the necessary characteristics for a bishop, nothing is said about the fact that he must have an apostolic ordination or 2-3 bishops (as was later accepted in the Church). This means that ordination, which was undoubtedly obligatory, was not as important as people today try to attribute to it. For, if the chief apostolic church had known about the idea of ​​​​transferring the grace of the priesthood through the laying on of hands, then undoubtedly the Apostle Paul would have touched upon this issue very thoroughly.

Moreover, the same apostle writes in the last. Eph 4, speaking about the gift of “shepherd and teacher” (v. 11), that this gift is given by the Lord Jesus Himself, and in 1 Cor. 12, he shows that all gifts are given by the Holy Spirit, as He pleases (v. 11) . All this shows that such gifts cannot be distributed through ordination at the will of bishops (presbyters), but only at the will of God.

Moreover, we must again note the fact that the gift of a bishop is not mentioned in the list proposed by Paul (Eph. 4), for in the First Apostolic Church, as in the 1st century (for example, Clement of Rome), the concepts of “bishop” and “presbyter” applied to the same person. Simply, these two words showed the different functions of a minister.

Also, in proof of the above, one can also cite evidence from the most ancient creation of the apostolic times, the Didache (the teachings of the 12 apostles):

“Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, humble people, not lovers of money, and truthful, and proven; for they also render you the ministry of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your worthy members, as prophets and teachers.” Didache 15:1

From this we can conclude that the practice of appointing ministers, which we see in many modern churches is not biblical or ancient church, but on the contrary has evolved beyond recognition.

Regarding the expression “hands of the priesthood,” one should refer to the original text of the New Testament, which literally says the following: “twn ceirwn tou presbuteriou,” which means “hands of seniority.” Those. in this case, we mean confirmation of the calling and placement into ministry through senior ministers (elders), and not even an apostle (although he could have been there).

It remains to consider the fact that Timothy received the gift through ordination. It has already been shown above that this does not refer to the gift of a bishop or the gift of the priesthood. Perhaps Timothy had the gift of prophecy or some other gift, which he received through the ordination of St. Paul.

Here it is necessary to distinguish the gift of 1 Tim.4:14 from what is mentioned in 2 Tim.1:6, for in the first case the ordination was performed by the elders, and in the second by the Apostle Paul. In the first case - for service, in the second - endowment with a supernatural gift (but there is no talk about the ministry of a bishop or apostolic succession). We know that at that time the Holy Spirit could be given by the apostles - for example, Acts 8:16-17 - and Timothy received the Holy Spirit through the ordination of an apostle, and at the same time a spiritual gift for serving in the body of Christ, just like every believer . And later, seeing his talent, the elders put him in service. This order is also confirmed by the fact that the 2nd Epistle of Timothy is even more intimate in content, where St. Paul gives the last instructions to his beloved disciple. Therefore, it is quite natural for him to turn almost to the very beginning of the Christian life of his “spiritual” son.

Conclusion

Based on a brief examination of the ancient Fathers of the Church, ancient Tradition, Holy Scripture and simply common sense, we can come to the following conclusion: the doctrine of apostolic succession in grace arose no earlier than the 3rd century (more precisely in the 4th century, but this already requires additional research and articles) and is not what the apostles and the first Church Fathers taught, i.e. their students.

To the question: “What is the true Church?” Irenaeus of Lyon gives an excellent answer: “Where the Holy Spirit is, there is the Church and all the fullness of gifts.”

Therefore, one of the founders of Russian Baptists, V.G., was right. Pavlov saying:

“Baptists do not attach importance to the fact that the established church has an unbroken succession from the apostles in ordination, but to the fact that the church should be the successor of the spirit, doctrine and life of the apostles. It is not succession that is important, but the possession of these benefits.”

It is now in our time that the question of real and practical Christian life in the spirit of the apostles and their strength has become much more relevant in the face of the development of neo-paganism, the dominance of the Russian land by Eastern cults and the strengthening of fundamentalism in the Islamic world. Right now, more than ever, the Church of Christ is called to demonstrate Her living connection with Her Savior, which would be reflected in the holy and pious life of its members, works of mercy and all kinds of help to our society.

All this encourages us to move from reasoning on paper to practical life. For it is important not to say what it should have, but to show that it exists in ordinary life. And the Lord, the knower of the heart, knows everything. We'll give him a report.

I coined this term “evangelical-heterodox” in order to show that such churches stand on evangelical principles, but in their origin they trace their origins back to the nonconformist groups of the first and middle centuries, so they cannot quite be called Protestants. In addition, according to the official view of the Russian Orthodox Church, such churches are heterodox (for example, Baptists).

Even Ignatius of Antioch, who introduced this tripartite scheme, still said nothing about a single (monarchical) bishop. Moreover, in establishing such a system, he viewed the bishop as the center of unity in opposition to sects and heresies, and not as a person with the ability to transmit priestly grace for service (see Epistle to the Smyrnae).

Moreover, by the word “tradition” he understood the view, teaching, attitude, understanding of the apostles on certain issues, and not the modern idea of ​​Tradition, with its branched system of authors and works that were included in his “canon” or are simply recognized as such.

“Protopresbyter Mikhail Pomazansky, Orthodox dogmatic theology”, Novosibirsk, 1993, p. 11

Gabriel Morgan, Scripture and Tradition (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), p.20

"The Doctrine of Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy"

"The Doctrine of Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy"

Work plan

Introduction.

Main part:

1 . Apostolic succession in Orthodoxy:

A. Interpretation of the dogma of apostolic succession in Orthodox theology.

B. The history of the emergence of the dogma of apostolic succession.

2 . Apostolic succession in the light of the Gospel:

A. The conformity of the dogma of apostolic succession with the doctrines and spirit of the New Testament.

B. Apostolic succession and common sense.

Final part:

A. Influence Orthodox teaching about apostolic succession to Christianity as a whole.

B. The attitude of evangelical Christians to the dogma of apostolic succession.

Introduction

This research work belongs to the thematic series “Orthodox dogmatics and doctrines of the Gospel.” In particular, the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which illuminates the principles of apostolic succession, falls into the scope of the study. The reason for choosing this particular topic is justified by the apologetic opposition of doctrinal platforms, on the one hand, the dogma of the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, the Christian theology of the evangelical churches. The apostolate of the church, mentioned in the symbol of the Orthodox faith, is interpreted by Orthodox theologians in such a way that it excludes the action of the gifts of grace in all other denominations of world Christianity of all periods of the history of the Christian church, except in Orthodoxy. This position of the fathers of the Orthodox Church cannot be called harmless, since grace, the sole use of which they claim, covers not only the sphere of enriching the Church with gifts, but also has saving functions. If you agree with Orthodox teaching in this area, then the entire Christian world should rebaptize into Orthodoxy, especially since, in addition to its apostolic status, the Orthodox Church claims to be the only one, that is, the only correct and saving one. Any statement, especially a claim this kind, should be carefully researched and only then can decisions be made accordingly. In Christianity, since the time of the Apostles, the standard for studying any kind of doctrinal platform is the content of the Gospel and the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles proposed in it. Polemics of any format with Orthodox theologians are complicated by the fact that, along with the Holy Scriptures, they appeal to the canon of sacred traditions, which have a higher status in Orthodox dogma than the Scriptures. In the treatise “Sacred Tradition: the Source of the Orthodox Faith,” the famous Orthodox theologian Metropolitan Callistus (Ware) gives the following definition: “For Orthodox Christians, tradition means something more concrete and specific: the books of the Bible, the symbol of faith, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the holy fathers, canons, liturgical books, holy icons... Note that the Bible is part of the tradition.” We agree that the likelihood of a productive polemic with an opponent who has a similar position is extremely negligible. Therefore, the purpose of this work is not the intention to convince adherents of Orthodox teaching. The study is intended for use by Christians who accept the Holy Scriptures as the highest standard of measurement of values, and traditions and traditions as secondary material.

As a theoretical basis for studying the doctrine of apostolic succession, the works of famous Orthodox theologians past centuries and modern times. These are works on the topic of Orthodox dogmatic theology of the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as works of Orthodox theologians in Europe and America. Fundamentally, their views do not differ, since they are all bound by the canons of tradition and are authorized to accurately convey to future generations the heritage of the holy fathers. In fact, in almost every theological work that includes a general overview of Orthodox dogma, there is a brief presentation of the understanding of apostolic succession and the sacrament of the priesthood.

The methodology of the proposed work is aimed primarily at a thorough review of the material on the topic under study in Orthodox sources, and the next step is a comparative analysis of this material with the Gospel teaching.

Main part.

It is very important, when researching a given topic, to consider the question unbiasedly, not in order to discover someone’s lies or to make sure that one is right. It is not so easy for a researcher to act as a disinterested person, which in itself is useful in matters of knowing the will of God. The process of this study is not limited to the study of hastily spoken words by someone somewhere, or to reflection on the minor points of sections of Christian theology. The Orthodox teaching on apostolic succession raises a question mark regarding the authenticity of the ministry of all world Christianity and the presence in it of the grace of the Holy Spirit. The statement is more than serious and is aggravated by the burden of authority of those from whom it comes. It is absolutely known that the dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Church does not exist on its own, but represents the opinion of Orthodox theologians around the world. This opinion emerged as a result of thousands of years of efforts by religious philosophers, authoritative scientists and church fathers. Orthodox dogma in its present edition has passed the tests of Ecumenical Councils and criticism of opponents, having in its history enough blood shed on this occasion. Can we frivolously reject the opinion of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, of whose forty-one members twenty-seven have an academic degree? Will we neglect the authority of one of the great theologians of modern Orthodoxy, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, the author of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” recognized as the main textbook on dogmatics in all seminaries in America? Of course, you should consider the opinions of your opponents with due attention and respect, which will be done in the first section of the main part of the abstract.

1. Apostolic succession in Orthodoxy.

A. Interpretation of apostolic succession in Orthodox dogmatics.

The opinion of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding apostolic succession is presented in his scientific work “The Sacrament of Faith” by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission:

“The apostolate of the Church lies in the fact that it was founded by the Apostles, maintains faith in their teaching, has succession from them and continues their ministry on earth. Apostolic succession is understood as an unbroken chain of ordinations (i.e., ordination to the rank of bishop), going from the apostles to today's bishops: the apostles ordained the first generation of bishops, who in turn ordained the second generation, and so on to this day. Christian communities where this continuity has been interrupted are recognized as having fallen away from the Church until it is restored.”

Firstly, the above quote represents one of the properties of the Church, spelled out in the creed approved by the first Council of Nicaea, also called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (325 AD). We are talking about the so-called apostolate of the Church. According to the understanding of Orthodox theologians of the term “Apostolic Church”, the Apostles of Jesus Christ (the twelve highest Apostles and the Apostle Paul) are the sole bearers of the teachings of Jesus Christ and no one except the highest Apostles and Paul has the ability and right to transmit the accepted teaching to the heritage of the Church. Simply put, the Apostles are considered the legal intermediaries between Jesus Christ and His Church. The basis for such an understanding is the special interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. In “Dogmatic Theology” by Priest O. Davydenkov, edited by the Moscow Patriarchate, we read: “The Holy Scripture speaks of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as an apostolic ministry (Gal4:4-5; Heb3:1) ... The Church was established on the foundation of the apostles (Eph. 2, 20; Rev. 21:14). Thus, the apostles are the foundation of the Church in a chronological sense - they stood at the origins of its historical existence.” Since the highest Apostles were at one time removed by the Lord from earthly existence, the question quite naturally arises about assigning the right of mediation between Christ and the Church to certain conditional persons instead of the highest Apostles who have gone into eternity. This deficiency motivated Orthodox theologians, firstly, to designate the deficiency itself with the term “succession”, and secondly, to define the conditions and schematics apostolic succession, elevating it to the rank of teaching. Thus, the scheme of apostolic succession presupposes the presence in each historical generation of Christians of a specific group of ministers to whom their predecessors inherit not only the content of the teachings of Christ and the sacraments, but also the sole right to be the guardians and distributors of these values. According to this interpretation, the preaching of the Gospel without the direct or indirect control of ministers who have apostolic succession will not be recognized as legitimate. The ordination of Christian ministers of all ranks must have a direct connection with the highest successors of the Apostles at a given historical period of time. Apostolic succession operates according to the same scheme according to which lists of first-born princes were compiled during the time of the patriarchs. This is exactly how Orthodox theology explains the administrative structure of the Church and the method of transmitting the teachings of Jesus Christ from generation to generation in an intact form.

In addition to the legal aspect, there is also a spiritual aspect in the scheme of apostolic succession, and here is its principle, according to the same priest O. Davydenkov, theologian of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate: “In addition to the teaching that was transmitted to the Church by the Apostles, the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit must be preserved in the Church, which the Church in the person of the Apostles received on the day of Pentecost. This succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is transmitted through sacred ordination, therefore the second side of the Apostolic Church is the continuous succession from the apostles of the divinely established hierarchy, which is faithful to the apostolic tradition in teaching, in sacred rites and in the foundations of the church structure.”

What does the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit mean? This is all that is given to believing people from the Holy Spirit for their salvation and service to God. Apostolic succession gives the highest apostles themselves the sole right of mediation in the process of giving these gifts to the earth and, accordingly, from the highest apostles, by direct inheritance, the right of mediation in the field of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit is transferred to the next generation of ministers. According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit, falling to the Church from heaven, find themselves distributed only by a narrow group of persons who have the status of apostolic succession. The same doctrine separates into the rank of illegal all ministers who are not links in the direct chain of ordination to the priesthood from the highest Apostles or their direct successors. Accordingly, the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit cannot be distributed by priests excluded from the direct chain of apostolic succession.

Churches planted by ministers not connected by the chain of apostolic succession are not recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ and for this reason cannot receive from the Lord the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The conclusion is the following: apostolic succession, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, is a means established by God to preserve the teachings of the Church and its administrative (hierarchical) structure since the time of the highest Apostles through the sacrament of the priesthood, endowed by God with the right to transmit the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit through episcopal consecrations (ordinations) .

B. The history of the emergence of the dogma of apostolic succession.

According to the unanimous opinion of Orthodox theologians, the historical root cause of the emergence of dogmas about the Church, in the context of which the dogma of apostolic succession occupies one of the key positions, is the rapid surge of anti-Christian heresies that struck the Church in the second century AD. On this occasion, Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) testifies in one of his essays:

In the first centuries of the historical existence of the Church there was a whole series of heretical movements that deviated from the truth precisely in resolving the question of the essence and properties of the Church, such as Judeo-Christianity, Gnosticism, Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism. The literary and dogmatic struggle of church leaders against these anti-church phenomena undoubtedly constitutes the most important moments in the history of the dogma of the Church. .

It is generally accepted that the development of the doctrine was started by Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD). It is he who, in his treatises “Against Heresies,” contrasts false knowledge not so much with his personal knowledge as with the authority of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, linking together the so-called universal Church with the teaching of the Apostles and their true successors in Christ. And although in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons there is no direct reference to apostolic succession as a dogma of the church, the idea as such can be traced in the image of opposition to the ever-increasing danger of heresies.

The follower of St. Peter, Clement of Rome (died 202 AD), made some contribution to the development of the idea of ​​apostolic succession. Compiling his epistles to the Corinthians, in a separate section of his letter he emphasizes: “The order of clergy in the church was established by Christ: bishops and deacons were appointed apostles.” The reason for the development of the idea of ​​succession was again the unrest in the church, the suppression of which required serious legal support, which later became the dogma of apostolic succession.

No less concern about the future fate of the Church, attacked by heretics, was expressed by Irenaeus’ contemporary Tertullian (155-230 AD), who was zealous for the unity of faith in all churches.

But only in the middle of the third century did Cyprian of Carthage (210-258 AD) develop the idea of ​​apostolic succession, bringing it closer to the format that is presented in modern dogmatics of Orthodoxy. He drew inspiration from outbursts of zeal for the unity of the church and its teachings:

“This unity must be firmly supported and defended by us, especially by the bishops who preside over the Church, in order to show that the bishopric itself is one and indivisible.” .

Subsequently, Optatus of Milevia (315-386) and Augustine (354-430) took part in the development of the doctrine of the apostolic in their spiritual works.

2. Apostolic succession in the light of the Gospel.

The content of the first section of the main part of the project work provided a brief overview of the dogma of the Orthodox Church on apostolic succession. Based on this review, it becomes clear that the root cause of the appearance of this teaching, according to Orthodox theologians, was the intensification of heretical teachings in the second and third centuries. The reaction of church ministers, represented by such theologians as Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine and others, was the proclamation of the so-called “symbol of faith” at the first Council of Nicaea (325). The context of the creed contained the dogma of the apostolate of the church, from which the understanding of apostolic succession follows. Thus, a certain group of senior ministers (bishops) of the Christian church acquired a legal basis to be called the true church and to form criteria for evaluating the activities of all Christian churches in subsequent history. Such a decision could be classified as inflated self-esteem, if not for one historical circumstance: the Council of Nicea made its fateful decision twelve years after the publication of the so-called Edict of Milan on religious tolerance in 313 under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine. According to the consequences of the Edict of Milan, the Christian religion soon gained national status. Consequently, the decisions of religious Christian forums acquired over time the status of state laws and the patronage of the Roman Caesar.

So, if in the first section the issue of apostolic succession was considered exclusively from the position of Orthodox teaching, then in the second section a thorough examination of this dogma will be carried out. The examination does not claim to be independent, since the author course work represents the theological position of the Protestant school and apostolic succession will be considered from the point of view of evangelical Christianity. To achieve a result in the study, at least three tools (measures) must be used during the examination: firstly - the Gospel of Jesus Christ, secondly - common (natural, natural) sense, thirdly - an assessment of the consequences (fruits) of the dogma of apostolic succession.

A. Correspondence of the dogma of apostolic succession to the doctrines and spirit of the New Testament.

The dogma of apostolic succession presupposes the operation of a rigid hierarchical ladder in the administrative structure of the church. The famous Orthodox theologian M. Pomazansky thus represents the position of Orthodoxy: “... The hierarchy in the Church was established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, it is inseparable from the existence of the church and that in the apostolic period it received a three-degree organization.” As if confirming the correctness of the thought, the author cites as an example two texts from the book of Acts: 6ch. 2-6 texts - about the ordination of seven ministers by the apostles, and 14 ch. 23text - about the ordination of elders by the Apostle Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch.

Hierarchy in the dogma of apostolic succession .

First, let's define the term “hierarchy” in the meaning in which it is used. By combining two Greek words, hieros - sacred, and arche - authority, we get the term "priesthood" or hierarchy. The term “hierarchy” was first introduced in the fifth century by Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite in his treatises “On celestial hierarchy" and "About the church hierarchy." From then until now, hierarchy implies a sequence of service ranks, ranks from lowest to highest in the order of their subordination. At the time of Jesus Christ, the effect of the hierarchical division of human society was clearly visible both in the social and religious environment. Matthew 18:1 “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Mark 9:34“They were silent because along the way they were arguing among themselves who was the greatest.” The disciples tried to find out from Christ the principles of building the church hierarchy, because they came from a world in which all human relationships were built according to hierarchy (when guests came to the feast, they tried to take more honorable places). According to the Orthodox interpretation of intra-church relations, Christ should have divided the disciples into certain hierarchical levels (at least into three bishops, presbyters and deacons), but for some reason He did not do this. On the contrary, the Lord proclaimed for the disciples an administrative structure that was essentially the opposite of that practiced in secular society: Mark 9:35 “And he sat down and called the twelve and said to them, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.”" This form of relationship completely excludes any kind of hierarchy with its division into classes. Is it possible to imagine an Orthodox priest, a representative of the highest level of the hierarchical ladder, in the image in which the word of Christ obliges him to abide, that is, in the image of a servant? An example in this regard is the Apostle Paul, who, in his anointing as an apostle and calling as an apostle, was a true servant for all people and, if he showed severity, it was only in the form of words. It is no secret to anyone in what luxury and abundance of earthly goods the highest ranks of the Orthodox Church maintain themselves, and all this is the consequence of the hierarchical scheme of church governance. Hierarchical division will never allow even the lowest rank of Orthodoxy to realize, much less show, love for a church parishioner as an equal. And not because a person is not able to show love, humble himself, be content with a low position or realize his insignificance. Man is capable, but the hierarchy imposed on the church will never allow a minister to be a servant according to the word of Christ, because hierarchy is the achievement and fruit of the flesh opposing the spirit. The hierarchical division into classes of ministers, from lower to higher, present in the structure of the church, motivates ministers to increase in ranks and creates a favorable environment for building corruption schemes, which makes no sense to talk much about it. Christ himself, being the Son of God and heir to the great throne, was as far from the desire for power and domination (even from healthy motives) as the east remains far from the west. The attitude of Christ to the hierarchy is very clearly spelled out in the types of the old testament:

*Isaiah 42:1-3 “Behold, My Servant, whom I hold by the hand, My chosen one, in whom My soul delights. I will put My spirit on Him, and He will proclaim judgment to the nations. He will not cry out, nor lift up His voice, nor let it be heard in the streets; He will not break a bruised reed, nor will He quench the smoking flax; will carry out judgment according to the truth."

*Isaiah 53:2-3 “For He came up before Him as an offspring and as a shoot out of dry ground; there is neither appearance nor grandeur in it; and we saw Him, and there was no appearance in Him that would attract us to Him. He was despised and humbled before men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with pain, and we turned our faces away from Him; He was despised, and we thought nothing of Him.”

Why was Christ despised? Because He did not build a hierarchical structure in His ministry that would emphasize His primacy and the scope of his power. But if Christ had built His relationships with people according to the principles of secular laws, then He would never have been able to fulfill His destiny as the Lamb. The Lamb, as such, does not meet the requirements of the spirit of hierarchy.

The outline of the true church is very simple and its structure is shown in the book “The Acts of the Apostles.” The construction of the church after the descent of the Holy Spirit was very simple: the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, preached the Gospel, people listened and accepted this word through repentance. Then they were baptized and subsequently gathered in small groups in their homes or in prayer halls, where preachers taught by the apostles explained to them the way of salvation from the words of Jesus Christ. Bishops and elders were not separated by any hierarchical schemes, but according to the meaning of the title they served the church as elders and overseers, that is, caretakers. The Lord did not order anyone to rule or dominate the church, but to oversee it, having in his arsenal the word of God, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the status of a humble servant to whom the Lord entrusted His flock. In the Acts there is, as such, no scheme for the hierarchical division of ministers into lower and higher. Apostle Paul, for example, was blessed for ministry by the Lord Himself, and this fact did not in the least bother the senior apostles who personally knew Christ. As a rule, if a preacher appeared, like Paul or Apollos, the apostles were interested solely in the content of the doctrine they preached. If the teaching was true, the preachers were recognized and given the hand of fellowship. If anyone preached a false teaching, the apostles gave an explanation on this matter and recommended that the church not accept heresies. There are no examples in Acts of the use of administrative methods to protect the church from heresies. The 13th chapter of Acts tells how in the church of Antioch the Holy Spirit gave a revelation to the ministers to go on a mission to save the pagan nations and this ministry was not coordinated with the highest apostles. Subsequently, this issue was raised in Jerusalem, but not in terms of the legality of the actions of the Antiochian prophets and teachers, but regarding the principled attitude towards pagans in the church. Neither in the Acts, nor in the conciliar epistles, nor in the epistles of Paul is there even a hint of the apostles’ monopolization of the right to build the church and distribute the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. True apostles, teachers and bishops were not jealous that someone began to preach the Gospel without their personal blessing. They tried to admonish the heretics or moved away from them, interrupting communication. The Apostle Paul in his epistles repeatedly recommended that preachers and teachers not engage in verbal disputes and avoid participating in any senseless polemics.

The dogma of apostolic succession is intended to protect the church from the influence of heresies and heretics, and at first glance there is nothing reprehensible in this, with the exception of one significant point. What did Christ say about heretics and how did He recommend protecting the church from heresies?

*Luke 21:8 “He said: Beware that you are not deceived; for many will come in my name, saying that I am he; and that time is near..."

So, Christ directly says that false prophets and teachers will come. So what does he recommend to his disciples to do about this, how to protect the church? Firstly, neither in the words of Christ nor in the epistles of the apostles is there any development of the idea of ​​protecting the church, if only because the church is built by Christ Himself and created by the Holy Spirit. What the disciples need to do in this regard is told in direct speech in the context of the entire 21st chapter of St. Luke, namely:

Be careful, that is, take care of yourself (not engage in a meaningless fight);

Do not allow yourself to be carried away and seduced;

Carefully follow the course of history and compare its course with the predictions of Christ;

Not only do not confront your enemies and tormentors in the flesh, but do not even think about the words of your justification before them, since the Lord will fill your mouth with words at the right time;

Some of the disciples will be betrayed, and some will be killed;

The disciples will be hated for the name of Christ;

The Lord will personally provide for their safety;

To be saved, you need to be patient.

These are the recommendations of Jesus Christ, who cares about the church more than his disciples, but at the same time there is no hint in his word about building a special hierarchy in the church to preserve teaching and protect against heresies. These prophecies say. That the Holy Spirit will teach everything, which means that every generation of people who believe in Jesus Christ will experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which will teach the church everything. There is no need, as provided for by the dogma of apostolic succession, to monitor the preservation of the teachings of Christ from generation to generation through special administrative methods. The principle of the New Testament, which St. Paul preached in his letter to Hebrews 8:10 “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their minds and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be My people." And Christ said: “And you do not call yourself teachers, for you have one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven; and do not be called mentors, for you have only one mentor - Christ. The greatest of you shall be your servant." *Matt 23:8-11 . The Lord says that there is no need for special teachers and mentors who will one day unite all the doctrines of the Gospel into a single dogma and pass it on from generation to generation. The role of these same teachers and mentors was taken on by influential theologians of Orthodoxy and the fathers of the Orthodox Church. They proclaimed their personal works as the only correct teaching of the Lord, calling these works sacred traditions, equating their meaning with the texts of the Holy Bible. And the dogma of apostolic succession, as it were, legally confirms the legitimacy of all this writing. Calling themselves holy fathers, rulers and priests, the bearers of the anti-Christian idea mock the direct command of Christ not to do this.

Thus, it is not difficult to prove on the basis of the Gospel that the hierarchical scheme for building the career ladder in the structure of the Orthodox Church, justified by the dogma of apostolic succession, grossly contradicts not only the spirit of the Gospel, but also the direct words and commands of the Lord Jesus Christ .

Succession of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit through sacred ordination.

Another quote from the Orthodox dogmatic theology of Priest O. Davydenkov: “In addition to the teaching that was handed down to the church by the apostles, the church must preserve the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit, which the church, in the person of the apostles, received on the day of Pentecost. This succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is transmitted through sacred ordination...”

The gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to Orthodox theologians, were received by the apostles directly from Jesus Christ and cover three areas of service to the church: firstly, Christian service and preaching, secondly, the performance of sacred rites in the church (baptism, repentance, communion, anointing, anointing), thirdly, the gifts of church governance (ordination of the priesthood, imposition of penalties). There is no doubt that the church moves and grows thanks to the gracious (supernatural) gifts of the Holy Spirit, but how legitimate is the statement of the dogma of apostolic succession regarding the principle of distribution of these gifts in the church. The principle is established on two pillars: the first pillar - the apostles were not only baptized with the Holy Spirit, but also received from the Lord the sole right to dispose of the gifts of grace at their own discretion, and the second pillar is the hereditary right of all bishops who were ordained by the apostles to bless subsequent ones with these gifts generations. According to Orthodox dogma, only a narrow circle of church ministers, who have a direct genealogical connection in their priesthood with the highest apostles, are endowed with the right to inherit the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. The argumentation for this feature of the dogma of apostolic succession is so vague and superficial that it does not withstand even light criticism, since it is presented in texts that are not directly related to the subject of the statement.

Considering the succession of gifts of grace, as counterarguments I would like to cite the following texts of the Gospel as examples:

*John 3:8 “The Spirit breathes where it wishes, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes: this is the case with everyone born of the Spirit.”

*John 7:37-39 “And on the last great day of the feast Jesus stood and cried, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink; Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture says, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. This He said about the Spirit, which those who believed in Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet upon them, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

If the first text proclaims the absolute sovereignty of the Holy Spirit as the Person of the Divine, then in the next text Jesus explains the nature of the entry of the Spirit into man and here a clear indication of the primary condition for receiving the gifts of grace is faith. Only through faith is it possible to receive, that is, to give free access, having first thirsted, not just gifts, but first of all the Holy Spirit Himself into human nature. Saying, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you...”, Christ separates the process of accepting gifts of grace from the sacred rite of meeting with the Holy Spirit, and these two processes are inseparable. How higher form Blasphemy can be perceived as someone’s intention to be a mediator in the process of the descent of the Holy Spirit on a person. The apostles were commanded to teach, that is, to inform and baptize believers in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and then the prospect of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit opens up for believers (Acts 2:38). From whom to get it? From the apostles or their successors? No! The Holy Spirit is not limited to the mediation of men, no matter how perfect they may be, but can only be sent by Jesus Christ. This argument would be incomplete without citing one of the key texts of the Bible that has the promise of the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit:

*Joel 2:28“And it shall come to pass after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh...”

In this prophecy, as in many others, it is clearly shown that the initiative to pour out the Holy Spirit on man exclusively belongs to the Lord God, which Christ spoke about : *John 14:16“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.” And it is even more clearly said that the Lord God Himself will pour out His Spirit on all flesh, that is, on all people at His discretion.

If we assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit will descend on people selectively, then the criteria for His assessment of vessels for filling have been known since ancient times and a list of them can be easily traced in the destinies and characters of God’s chosen ones. Such are Abel and Noah, Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses and Joshua, David and Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. Even the most primitive way of thinking tells a person that if we build a certain pattern in the field of election, then the best of the best should be called elected. But Orthodox theology in this situation makes a diplomatic maneuver, admitting into the lists of selected successors for the right to inherit the gifts of grace, people who are openly sinful, mediocre and indifferent to their work. Another quote from " Sacraments of faith" Metropolitan Hilarion: “According to the teachings of the church, the moral imperfection of a particular clergyman does not affect the effectiveness of what he performs, because when performing the sacraments he is only an instrument of God... Being an instrument, witness and servant of God, a priest must be, as far as possible, pure, blameless and not involved in sin ». The Metropolitan hints that the priest is allowed to be partially blameless, that is, to have certain vices and even moral defects. And the apostles demand from the bishop unconditional integrity and moral perfection (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6; 2 Tim 2:21). The reason for the loyalty of Orthodox theology is very simple - first they filled their church with bishops with dubious reputations, and only later, based on a fait accompli, they began to manipulate the doctrines of their theology to suit the current situation. And the problem is not that priests are imperfect and sin, but that the teachings of the church do not see anything reprehensible in this. It turns out that the Lord God does not care with whom to deal and who to send to serve, as long as the direct instructions of the word of God are followed. But in this case, careless and sinful bishops give reason to blaspheme the name of God. Andre Miller in “The History of the Christian Church,” considering the fate of upper-class priests, gives dozens of examples of such a level of corruption of the religious nobility, which is categorically unacceptable not only for a Christian, but even for a sinful layman. Justification was hidden in the doctrine of apostolic succession.

What conclusion can be drawn regarding the assumption by Orthodox theologians of the sole right to receive and distribute the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit? We can say with confidence that this is no longer the action of the carnal thought of a self-loving person, but the action of a spirit contrary to the Gospel and Christ Himself, that is, the spirit of the Antichrist.

B. Apostolic succession and common sense.

If we leave apologetic ambitions and consider the apostolate of Orthodoxy at the level of independent examination, which does not take into account the values ​​of a doctrinal theological nature and is far from understanding the philosophical depths, then we need to turn to the assessments of an uninterested party. This may be the opinion of an ordinary member of the church, or a skilled historian, or it may be the point of view of a man in the street, wise with everyday experience, who calls all things by their proper names.

One of the most outstanding and iconic personalities in Orthodox Christianity is the Roman Emperor Flavius ​​Valerius Constantine (272-337), canonized by the church with the title of Equal-to-the-Apostles Saint. This is the opinion, and indisputable, of theologians of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. It was he, Constantine the Great, who contributed to the adoption in the Roman Empire of the law on religious tolerance, approved by the Edict of Milan in 313. But not everyone knows that the Equal-to-the-Apostles saint accepted repentance at the end of his life, having previously taken an active part in the history of the church, actually ruling the church and its forums during the period of his reign over the empire. This is what historians say about him: “ Constantine's turn to Christianity apparently occurred during the period of the struggle against Maxentius. The Edict of Milan 313 recognized Christianity as an equal religion. Thus, the foundation was laid for its establishment as a state religion. State intervention in church affairs, in particular in church disputes, which has become commonplace since the time of Constantine, made the church state and turned it into an instrument of political power.”. It was Constantine who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325, which adopted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the affirmation of such a quality of the church as apostleship. A religious thinker will look for God's providence in these events, and a sober analyst will make the following conclusion: Constantine used the overall scale of the influence of Christian teaching on the philosophy of human life to transform the wild and immoral pagan culture into a healthy culture. To implement his plan, Constantine used Christian ministers who were in opposition to the true church of the apostolic teaching. The followers of the apostles would never have made such a compromise, and would not have surrendered themselves to the power of a pagan ruler, and an unconverted one at that. The problem of the conflict between the true church and the religious group of philosophers who became the vanguard of the creation of the state church was resolved by the emperor at the Council of Nicaea, legalizing apostates and condemning the actions of the opposition. Proof of the veracity of this particular line of thinking is the subsequent history of the pseudo-Christianity of the Roman Empire, baptized by the unbelieving Constantine and his mother Helen, who was subsequently canonized to the title of Equal-to-the-Apostles saint by incomprehensible merit. In this story, all the sharp corners and rough edges of the inconsistency between the born “new church” and its unconverted leaders are polished with the help of the doctrine of apostolic succession, and the so-called “sacred traditions” put an affirmative stamp on all this ugliness.

No less interesting is the view of historians on the origins of Orthodox Christianity in ancient Rus'. The key figure in the baptism of ancient Rus' is undoubtedly considered Prince of Kyiv Vladimir the Great (980-1014). Prince Vladimir the Great entered the history of the Russian Orthodox Church as an equal-to-the-apostles saint. But secular historians see the touching picture of the baptism of the prince himself and the future Christianization of pagan Rus' through the prism of sound thinking based on facts hidden in ancient chronicles. The famous Russian writer and historian N.M. Karamzin in “The History of the Russian State” devotes the ninth chapter of this work to the personality of Prince Vladimir and the so-called baptism of Rus'. From the content of this work it becomes clear that the Grand Duke throughout his adult life, both before and after baptism, was known as a cruel, power-hungry and woman-loving man. There is not a single word in the ancient chronicles that the prince repented, realized his sinfulness, believed in the atonement of his sins and became a different person, born again. Judging by the fruits of the life of the Grand Duke, he was as far from the Christian faith as the east is from the west. Another thing is unclear - what qualities of the character of Prince Vladimir motivated the leaders of Orthodoxy to canonize this man and assign him the title of Equal-to-the-Apostles saint? It seems that the canonizers themselves do not have the slightest idea about the standards of holiness and the apostolic feat of the faith. Common sense about this story asks a natural question: what and who is behind such processes? The answer is no less simple than the question: behind all this is seen human self-interest and shamelessness, which opens the way to the desecration of Christian shrines and the memory of the apostles who laid down their souls for the name of Jesus Christ.

So, based on the judgment of common sense, the conclusion itself suggests itself that the Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession was at one time developed by intelligent people in order to use Christian values ​​and Christian culture for selfish purposes. In this, Orthodox theologians act on the principle - “the end justifies the means.”

Final part

The purpose of this work is to examine the Orthodox teaching on apostolic succession for its consistency with the doctrines of the New Testament and its spirit. The final conclusion will look more convincing if, as an appendix to this work, we add one more very important subpoint, namely:

A. The influence of the Orthodox teaching on apostolic succession on Christianity as a whole.

It is worth noting that any kind, format and content Christian doctrine to a greater or lesser extent, but will influence people's worldview. The teaching exists to teach people, to influence people and to convince them.

In the context of the dogma of apostolic succession, in continuation of the theme of the Orthodox Church as the only true one, directly or indirectly, there is not only an anathema to all existing Christian denominations, but also a statement about the absence of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit among them. This teaching is spelled out in all textbooks on Orthodox dogmatic theology and approved by authoritative theologians of Orthodoxy, including modern scientists. Millions of Orthodox believers are sincerely convinced that the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox priesthood are the only representation of the truth in Christianity. For this reason, visible and invisible confrontation arises between Orthodox theologians and theologians of other Christian denominations. Hostile relations from the plane of scholarly debate often move to the level of open hostility and mutual slander, even among the Orthodox world. For example: the priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in Zaporozhye imposed an anathema on the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret. The anathema was declared on March 20, 2016 during a service in the Holy Intercession Cathedral: “ The all-evil Mikhail Denisenko, who devoted himself to a godless cause and was appointed head of an unholy gathering for the sake of personal well-being and who declared himself to be the Patriarch of Kyiv and all his followers - anathema" This anathema to Patriarch Filaret was declared on 02/21/1997 at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow for schismatic activities and since then, according to church canons, this anathema has been declared every year regularly. The reason for the anathema was the intention of some churches in Ukraine to gain independence from the Moscow Patriarchate, but the canons of the Orthodox Church, based on the doctrine of apostolic succession, do not allow such liberties.

What consequences can be expected from deliberately inciting hostility between major religious groups? The most terrible consequence is the dishonor of the priesthood of Christ in the eyes of ordinary people, but they understand that the main reason for this enmity lies not in canons and dogmas, but in the fact that priests are fighting for power and spheres of influence. As a result, not only is the Orthodox faith, but also the entire Christian faith, which gives sinners a reason not to trust the church and its ministers.

Orthodox theologians do not limit themselves to anathemas on the scale of Orthodoxy, which would be more than enough, but they extend the effect of the dogma of apostolic succession to all world Christianity. Based on the ancient principle of all aggressors “the best form of defense is attack,” the guardians and inspirers of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed periodically pierce the religious formations of world Christianity with the arrows of the dogma of apostolic succession. In an aggressive form, they indicate to all opponents, without exception, their place and importance in the Church of Jesus Christ. Leading Orthodox theologians, having once branded all Christian denominations outside Orthodoxy with the shameful seal of apostasy, in addition continue to expand and replicate lists of so-called “totalitarian destructive sects.” In the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, this activity was led by Professor Dvorkin, author of the textbook “Sect Studies. Totalitarian sects" used in all educational institutions Russian Orthodox Church. In the lists of totalitarian sects, periodically updated by Orthodox apologists at scientific conferences, not only some evangelical Christian associations, but also a number of Orthodox churches are placed on a par with Satanists and Eastern cults.

But the most dramatic consequence of the dogma of apostolic succession may appear in the future, if the requirements of this dogma begin to be fulfilled in the format of the universal church. How? Through the unification of all the world's Orthodox churches into a single cathedral. This prospect is not so far-fetched and is in a state of radical development, moving parallel to the realization of the idea of ​​a one world government. If the unification of all world Orthodoxy into a single indivisible structure was fundamentally impossible, then there would be no conversation at such a serious level and there would be no struggle for supremacy in this future structure. Sooner or later, they will come to an agreement and then the implementation of the idea of ​​uniting all the world's Christian faiths will reach the finish line (according to at least in a legal format) into a single world structure, the universal church. At each stage of consolidation of lower forms into higher ones, a whole order of opponents disappears from the field of polemics, and along with them the sound voice of criticism and denunciation disappears.

Thus, the dogma of apostolic succession directly or indirectly directs the gaze of all world leaders of Christianity to the letter and spirit of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, adopted at the well-known Council of Nicaea (325). The letter of this forum directly states that only Christian ministers who are a link in the unbroken chain of ordination of the priesthood with the transmission of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit fall into the format of legitimacy. How can this requirement be met? According to Orthodox theologians of the past and present, all Christian churches must submit to the jurisdiction of Orthodoxy. In this case, the global Christian structure will acquire a single body and a single leader with the title of Bishop of Rome. Spirit of the Council of Nicaea 325 reminds that the inspirer and father of this council was the unconverted pagan Emperor Constantine. If we draw an analogy between the past and the present, then the initiator of achieving unity in world Christianity can be an unconverted pagan with a worldwide reputation and an unlimited sphere of influence in Lately before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It turns out that a dogma, harmless in its content, created out of good intentions, will play an important role during the period of the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist on earth.

B. The attitude of evangelical Christians to the dogma of apostolic succession.

Any teaching in the field of Christian theology is worthy of study for the presence of rational grains of truth in it, and if any are present, then there is no obstacle to their reasonable use. Although this work contains rather sharp criticism of the position of Orthodox theologians, even so it must be emphasized that in the very idea of ​​apostolic succession, if you do not pay attention to the hidden implication of selfish thoughts, there is a pure positive meaning. After all, the founders of the dogma, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch and some others, sought only to resist the heresy of Gnosticism and preserve the unity of the church. If until now the apostolic succession had pursued only these goals, then there would have been no subject for harsh polemics. It cannot be said that among evangelical Christians there are no overt or hidden negative aspects of the doctrine of apostolic succession. It is necessary to think about this and preserve the true apostolic simplicity and selflessness left by the highest apostles as an unfading heritage.

List of used literature.

1. Bible, canonical books of the old and new testaments, Russian translation.
2. A. Miller “History of the Christian Church” vol. 1, ed. GBV, 1994
3. A.L. Dvorkin “Sectology”, http://azbyka.ru/sektovedenie
4. Hilarion (Troitsky) “On the need for a historical-dogmatic apology for the ninth member of the creed,” http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/ilarion_Troitskii
5. Metropolitan Hilarion “The Sacrament of Faith”, St. Petersburg, ed. "Alethea", 2001
6. Metropolitan Kallistos “Sacred Traditions”, http://apologia.hop.ru/uer/uer_pred.htm
7. M. Pomazansky “Orthodox dogmatic theology”, http://www.e-reading.club/bookriader.php/70752/protopresviter_Mihail_Pomazanskii-Pravoslavnoe_Dogmaticheskoe_Bogoslovie.html
8. N.M. Karamzin “History of the Russian State”, Chapter 9 “ Grand Duke Vladimir", http://www.kulichki.com/inkwell/text/histori/karamzin/kar01_09.htm

Bishop Job of Shumsky talks about the gracelessness of the religious association created in Ukraine by politicians and rioters.

– Vladyka, why is the Orthodox Church Apostolic? By virtue of what canons?

– Not only the canons of the Church speak about such an important property of the Church of Christ as apostolate, or apostolicity. The fact that our Church is Apostolic is clearly stated in the 9th article of the Creed, which also indicates other signs of the real Church.

Since the term “apostle” means “messenger,” then “Apostolic” in relation to the Church, first of all, means the “sent” Church, sent into this world for a specific purpose - the mission of witnessing to Christ. This mission of the Church is not limited by time. It is bequeathed to the community of Christ's followers until the end of the earthly history of mankind. This property of the Church is based on the eternal words of Christ and His personal example: “As You sent Me into the world, So and I sent them into the world” (John 17:18) and “as the Father sent Me, so I send you” (John 20:21).

Our important doctrinal book “Catechism” says that the Church is called Apostolic because it is established in the Universe through labors, exploits, preaching the Gospel and even their blood. The Apostles, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, grew the Church. It contains the same faith that the apostles professed, the apostolic traditions and traditions. The teaching of the Church is the same as that of the apostles. The church people strive to live as His apostles lived in Christ, and thereby continue the work of their evangelization of the Gospel. It is significant that in the Church, since the time of the apostles, a “chain” of grace-filled consecrations—initiations to the priesthood—has been continuously preserved and continued. This importance of the legal succession of the hierarchy is noted by the first generation of Christians who lived after the apostles - the so-called Apostolic Men: the Hieromartyrs Ignatius the God-Bearer and Clement of Rome.

According to the testimony of St. Clement of Rome, “our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there will be contention about the episcopal dignity. For this very reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned ministers, and then added a law, so that when they died, other proven men would take over their ministry.” Saint Philaret in his “Catechism” indicated that the Church “continuously and invariably preserves from the apostles both the teaching and the succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit through sacred ordination.”

– What does apostolic succession mean?

– Apostolic succession implies not only a continuous “chain” of episcopal consecrations, going back to the apostles themselves, but also loyalty of the church hierarchy to “the apostolic Tradition in teaching, in sacred rites and in the canonical structure of the Church.” Since ancient times, the preservation of apostolic succession by the church hierarchy was considered as one of the signs of the true Church, as the smch wrote about it. Irenaeus of Lyon: “...We can list the bishops installed as apostles in the Churches, and their successors before us, who taught nothing and did not know what these (heretics and apostates from Orthodoxy) are raving about.”

Just as electricity does not flow through a broken wire, so the clergy of schismatic communities, damaged by pride and disobedience, do not have the fullness of grace that is necessary for bliss and communion with God in joy. God gives it to the humble and obedient, as the Scripture says (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). Therefore, the Church has always collectively and carefully studied the question of the dignity of accepting those who were outside of it, those who left it and sincerely wish to return back, the degree of harm they caused to the Church, their zeal in repentance and return lured into the Church by them.

This important sign of the True Church obliges us to hold fast to the only Church of Christ, which was confirmed by the Holy Spirit and the works of the holy apostles.

Can the newborn religious association created in Ukraine by politicians and rioters be called the Apostolic Church? Once again, as in every schism, the chain of apostolic succession is broken. Its “restoration”, more precisely, a simple, rather vague, statement on the recognition of all schismatic clergy in their existing rank, and the leaders in the rank that they had before leaving the schism with the Mother Church, accepted only by the Synod of Constantinople, was made with a very violation many canons.

In the twentieth century, all Orthodox-autocephalous structures only in appearance, but essentially schismatic ones, were created out of pride for political purposes, election moves and, not excluded, commerce. Apparently, they need to be treated accordingly. I think that the Church and the church people will soon give the most accurate and fair name to this phenomenon, as was done in relation to the organization that emerged as a result of the blasphemous meeting in Kiev Sofia in 1921: “Self-sanctified!”

We ourselves at all times, especially today, need to be “apostles”-messengers, testifying about Christ. Such a great apostle of the last century is St. Silouan of Athos. Every day he begged God with tears: “May all the nations of the earth know You, O Merciful Lord, through the Holy Spirit!” And how many, thanks to his prayer and simple writings, example of heroism, also became saints, ascetics and even martyrs, joined the Church in repentance or baptism. Each of us can point not only to ourselves, but also to tens or hundreds of acquaintances whose lives have changed as a result of acquaintance with the elder’s writings. But he did not travel, he spent his entire life in one monastery, carried out his monastic obedience and prayed sincerely. And at the same time, according to the custom of Athos, he did not have any holy rank. This is the apostolate of monasticism and the laity: to be saints, dedicated to God and to ignite the hearts of others with this holiness.

The words of the Christmas greeting “Christ is born, glorify!”, the God-voiced folk psalms - “carols”, which are heard on Christmastide, are also a continuation of the work of the apostolic preaching, a vivid testimony of the life of the Apostolic Church. And no force of darkness will be able to steal or close the spiritual light of the Star of Bethlehem from us, or prevent us from being with God, except our sinful unrepentance. Even Herod, who killed infants in Bethlehem, who were immediately reborn and began a better life as happy holy first martyrs, with his lust for power is powerless against Christ and His Church.

Recorded by Natalya Goroshkova

“I will glorify those who glorify Me,
and those who dishonor Me will be put to shame."
(1 Samuel 2:30)

This work will be devoted to the very important topic of continuity in the Church. The relevance of this topic is difficult to overestimate. What is apostolic succession? Who are the real successors and heirs of the apostles, and who are the false ones? What are the marks of the true heirs of the apostles? What is the mechanism of transmission, spiritual inheritance and what is the role of the so-called. “ordination/ordination”? I will try to answer these and other questions. I hope that this work will help sincere Christians, who have decided to follow only Jesus, to finally free themselves from the bonds of lies that bind the mind and emerge from the captivity of ignorance into freedom.
These questions about succession and ordination also worried me at one time. After I received deliverance from sin through FAITH alone, this very question of the ordained priesthood arose before me in full force. I did not want to brush it off, but to receive a reasonable explanation from God. I waited patiently for an answer for a whole year. All this time I worked, devoted time to family responsibilities, but the main part of my mind was immersed in this topic. I was not idle. Every day I read the Bible, thought, reflected, went to services in the church (Orthodox) where I saw these ordained priests and waited for an answer from God. I was waiting for an answer to a fateful question for me. And the Lord answered me. My shepherd answered me through the Scriptures and the letters of the Apostles.
“Our soul is delivered, like a bird, from the net of those who catch it: the net is broken, and we are delivered.” (Ps. 123:7)

I will utter what has been hidden since the creation of the world

The Church was not formed out of emptiness. It was formed by the same God who once created Israel. The Church as an institution was the spiritual heir of Israel. The apostles were the spiritual successors of the ancient prophets. Disciples of Jesus: "they entered into their labor." (John 4:38) Therefore, I will often use the ancient stories of Scripture to understand this complex issue of the succession of the Spirit, and to determine in it the role and place of the so-called “ordination” (ordination), on which some place undue reliance.
It is common for a Christian to love and know the Holy Scriptures. The stories that tell of the lives and struggles of the ancient saints from Adam to John the Baptist are relevant and edifying for the follower of Jesus. God's character is revealed in the actions of the ancient saints. But especially important for a member of the Church are the stories of the life of Jesus and the letters of the Apostles. The writings of Paul occupy a central place in the Apostolic Heritage. I’ll even say more... (just don’t get me wrong), the letters of this “thirteenth apostle” are more valuable for understanding the teachings of Christ than the narratives from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which only later became called the Gospels. Why? I'll explain now. In the so-called The Gospels describe earthly life Jesus from birth to death. This is the “life” of Jesus. People read with emotion about the miracles of Christ, read His parables with delight and... they absolutely do not understand the teaching of the New Testament! They do not understand it not because they are stupid, but because it is not expressed explicitly. This indirect style of Jesus’ speech corresponded to the ancient prophecies about the behavior of Christ: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the creation of the world.” (Matt. 13:35) The Gospels are filled with descriptions of the miracles of Christ, His parables, His sayings, some of which were addressed only to the Jews, who were obliged to fulfill the Law of Moses, and have no direct relation to us. A modern pagan who reads the Gospel of Matthew runs the risk of completely misunderstanding the essence of the New Testament. Someone is needed to “chew and put in his mouth” the only way to obtain righteousness (i.e., justification) before God.
After his resurrection, Jesus did not withdraw or become silent. Christ began to speak through the Apostles, who no longer spoke in parables, but spoke to people openly and directly, proclaiming “the mystery of Christ” (Col. 4:3). It was Paul who turned out to be the one who, more clearly than others, knew how to “chew and put in his mouth” the essence of the teachings of Christ. It is not for nothing that God sent this chosen one to the pagans. It was Saul-Paul who wrote the letters in which he described in great detail the only way to obtain salvation and righteousness, through FAITH alone in the power of the Word of the Creator. This theme is present in all the letters of this outstanding man. However, this topic is most fully revealed by the Apostle of the Gentiles in his letter to the Romans. In this letter, he revealed in detail, with many examples, the essence of the difference between the Old Testament and the New, and convincingly proved why Faith in the Word of the Living God is the only and sufficient way for complete liberation from sin. Paul described in detail, saying modern language, the “technology” of salvation, through FAITH.
Why did he pay so much attention to FAITH? Because this is the only road to purity and holiness in God. This is the only one “the narrow way” (Matt. 7:14)(i.e. an inconspicuous path) leading people to salvation. After admitting our guilt before God, this is the only right step, followed by an instant response from God, making us righteous and not wicked before Him.

preach another Jesus

What other themes do we see in Paul's letters? We see discourse about the Sabbath (according to the law), about the Law itself, about food (according to the law), about circumcision (according to the law). What is the reason for their appearance? Paul did not write academically on abstract topics that have a distant relationship to real spiritual life. The appearance of these themes was dictated by life itself. These topics are evidence of attacks on Christians. Paul's disciples were pestered by other "followers" of Christ, who sincerely believed that faith alone was clearly not enough for salvation. These church members (who also considered themselves followers of Jesus) attacked our forefathers with questions:
- Why don’t you get circumcised? After all, God commanded this to be done even by the patriarchs!
- On what basis do you not keep the Sabbath? This is the commandment of the Lord!
- Why do you eat everything? You are ignoring Scripture!
This is a short list of the main “attacks” on the first true Christians. Paul, in his letters, taught his disciples how to respond to these “attacks.” The main danger for Christians saved by faith came not from the pagans, but from the camp of those who believed that faith alone was not enough for salvation. It was in opposition to these false apostles and others like them that Paul called for boldly going into battle with them, putting on the armor of the Gospel - "helmet of salvation" And "armor of righteousness". The above attacks were precisely those "flaming arrows", from which he reliably protected "shield of faith"(They protected themselves from unbelievers by faith.) The lot of Paul's disciples was not only a blind defense. They could successfully counterattack by taking “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17). It was these attackers that Paul called “heretics” (Titus 3:10). "Disgusting" from these heretics, i.e., without wasting precious time on convincing them, believers “having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:17), preached the Gospel to the pagans who wanted to hear the Word of God.
Behind all these attacks on Paul's disciples was the devil, who really did not want people to become righteous, so that they would be completely freed from sin. That is why the Apostle wrote: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:11-12)
It turns out that Christians are in a spiritual war with the devil himself, which began in Paradise: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.” (Gen.3:15)
The fallen cherub knows how to skillfully expose people to the sword of God’s righteous wrath. Once upon a time, the prince of darkness convinced Adam and Eve to deviate from the Word of God, and thereby brought the first people under criminal charges. The result is a break in the covenant with God, expulsion from Paradise, spiritual death, and then physical death. If Adam had known what the consequences would be, he would never have disobeyed this frivolous prohibition:
“Only from the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, do not eat it or touch it, lest you die.” (Gen.3:3)
But Adam was convinced that nothing bad would happen if he violated this ridiculous commandment.
When the preaching of the Gospel began and people began to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life by FAITH in the Word of Jesus, the devil immediately resisted. He used the same deception tactics. He convinced the followers of Christ that faith alone in such a serious matter as reconciliation with God is clearly not enough, but something else needs to be added to FAITH for reliability. This increase was: circumcision, Sabbath, food restriction, etc. This seemingly pious addition to FAITH (after all, it couldn’t get any worse) completely destroyed the Gospel. Man again fell for the same bait as the primordial Adam. Man again disobeyed God and, accordingly, did not achieve the result He required. Man did not achieve righteousness and purity, although he sincerely tried to please Him. It was these deceived Christians that the devil set against the disciples of the Apostles, trying to steal from them the righteousness and purity in Christ. Pay attention to the devil's favorite tactics! He does not act directly, but through people like you. Based on this danger, Paul wrote the following lines: “But I am afraid, lest, just as the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning, your minds too may be corrupted, straying from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if someone came and began to preach another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not receive, then you would be very lenient towards him.” (2 Cor. 11:3-4)
Paul's competitors told his students something like this:
- Is the truth revealed only to Paul? Is he smarter than everyone else? We are also followers of Jesus Christ and approach the matter of salvation more seriously, coordinating everything with Scripture.
Exactly "another gospel"(i.e., a different Gospel), was fraught with mortal danger for those who believed. In Paradise, the devil convinced people to ignore the frivolous (childish) commandment not to eat fruits from the same tree. However, failure to comply with this small rule led to catastrophic consequences - DEATH (Eternal). When the Gospel of Jesus sounded, the same spirit that had once deceived Adam now urged not to attach much importance to another small rule - FAITH, as too simple and frivolous a way to achieve justification before God. However, it was precisely this rule, inconspicuous at first glance, that gave and is now giving a fantastic result - ETERNAL LIFE!
We still hear:
- Well, what did you get on with: faith, faith, faith, faith... Did you believe and that’s it... and folded your arms?
Nothing has changed since those apostolic times. The tactics of the ancient serpent remained the same. Only the form has changed, only the packaging in which the same deception is wrapped has changed. We, now reading the story of the events in Paradise, exclaim in bewilderment, shaking our heads:
- How could you let yourself be deceived so easily! Didn’t Adam see that he was being fooled! All the devil's deception is sewn with white thread! Oh no! This number would not work with us!
The paradox is that the devil cleverly pulled off exactly the same “number” during the time of the Apostles. He is successfully doing the same thing today, as Paul predicted: “But evil men and deceivers will abound in evil, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13)
Salvation BY FAITH lies literally “under people’s feet.” However, the evil spirit, through his servants, convinces not to attach special importance to FAITH. He tells people, through his agents of influence, that FAITH is “dead in itself” (James 2:17). He, ridiculing FAITH, speaks through a message that plays the role of a Trojan horse, which “demons believe” (James 2:19). Two short shots to the Doctrine's head kill the entire body.

Be careful, brothers, that no one deceives you

But there was another one "hot arrow" from the arsenal “the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). So that Christians would not be struck by this arrow, it was necessary to write a separate, unsigned message. This is the so-called book of Hebrews. The main theme of this Apostolic Letter is the priesthood of Christ.
The apostles convinced their disciples that by accepting Christ by faith, they received the maximum that a person can receive. By accepting Jesus into our hearts, we have achieved completeness.
“Therefore, just as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
being rooted and built up in Him and strengthened in the faith, as you were taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving” (Col. 2:6-7)
“And you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:10)
But the devil, acting through his servants, tried to convince the disciples of the Apostles that they were missing something:
— Faith in Christ alone is not enough! Priesthood must be added to faith. Then there will be completeness!
Warning about this trick, the Apostle wrote: “Take heed, brethren, lest anyone lead you away through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8) We are not talking about pagan Greek philosophy. We are talking about those same “pious additions” from the Law of Moses, in the form of circumcision, the Sabbath or the priesthood. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (philosophy). Those. under the pretext of spiritual growth, you will be asked to take a certain supplement. Beware, this is a deception! It is no coincidence that Paul structured his speech this way and spoke about wisdom (philosophy). He wants us to remember the sad story of Paradise again and be vigilant. In Paradise, the devil also started talking about wisdom, and under this “sauce” he deceived Adam and Eve:
- “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5)
- “And the woman saw that the tree... gave knowledge” (Gen. 3:6)
The “arrow of the priesthood” shot at us by the evil spirit, the Holy Spirit acting through his servants, did not convince "to waver in mind". The Spirit of God urged us to remain in "His rest", because we have: "The great high priest who passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." Therefore we will not agree with "a different gospel." We “let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)
Hebrews is the antidote. It is not for nothing that the devil is represented by a serpent. The throw of a poisonous snake is lightning fast, and one bite is fatal.
Satan to this day remains the same murderer, “inventive for evil.” The Father of Lies has perfected his old deception. He no longer protests against the high priesthood of Christ. He came up with the doctrine of special intermediaries - priests, between the High Priest Christ and ordinary Christians. He came up with the theory of an ordained priesthood supposedly originating from the Apostles themselves. Behind this “conspiracy theory” lies the same old lie. It is a lie that faith in Christ is not enough. It is a lie that it is impossible to be saved without special intermediaries.
In response to the danger of being struck down by these modern weapons and becoming captives of church Babylon, God dresses his people in the body armor of faith.
Unfortunately, many people taking their first steps towards Christ have been caught in this snare. "another gospel". Many unconfirmed Christians have been misled by this doctrine of the ordained priesthood. This ordained priesthood, like the ancient Goliath, frightens and makes unconfirmed souls timid.
“And a single combatant named Goliath, from Gath, went out from the camp of the Philistines; He is six cubits and a span tall.
A copper helmet is on his head; and he was clothed with armor of scales, and the weight of his armor was five thousand shekels of brass;
brass kneepads on his feet, and a brass shield on his shoulders;
and the shaft of his spear is like a weaver's beam; and his spear was six hundred shekels of iron, and before him went an armor-bearer.” (1 Samuel 17:4-7)
The Devil has professionally equipped his best martial artist in "scale armor" from cleverly chosen quotations of Scripture. Official church history and canons - "brass kneecaps are on his feet". Many authoritative supporters of ordination - “His very spear was six hundred shekels of iron.”.
“And he stood and shouted to the armies of Israel, saying to them: Why did you go out to fight? Choose a person from yourself and let him come to me.
if he can fight me and kill me, then we will be your slaves; if I overcome him and kill him, then you will be our slaves and serve us.
And the Philistine said, Today I will put to shame the armies of Israel; give me a man, and we will fight together” (1 Samuel 17:8-10)
“And all the Israelites, when they saw the man, fled from him and were very afraid.
And the Israelites said, Do you see this man speaking? He comes out to revile Israel. If anyone had killed him..." (1 Samuel 17:24,25)
At all times, in response to spiritual threats from false teaching, God has fielded His warriors who have defeated the enemy.
“And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your body to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
And David answered the Philistine: You come against me with sword and spear and shield, but I come against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, which you have defied;
“Now the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will kill you, and take off your head, and will give the carcasses of the army of the Philistines to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth, and all the earth will know that there is a God in Israel” (1 Samuel 17:44-46 )
The God who inspired the prophets of Israel lives! God lives, who gave wisdom to the Apostles! God lives, who will teach us how to resist these lies in the mouths of modern false prophets!

What do we hear from the lips of our contemporary “church giant”? What are we, the heirs of the false apostles, putting into our ears? How "another gospel", is trying to enslave us and deprive us of freedom in Christ?
— The legal priesthood is not a spontaneous assumption of the duties and opportunities of the priesthood, but a continuous chain of laying on of hands and bestowing the grace of the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament, dating back to the apostolic age, and having its beginning from the Apostles.
- At the ordination, the bishop says a prayer: “Divine grace, which always heals everything that is weakened and restores the weakened, this very pious deacon “name” is elevated by my ordination to the presbyter: let us pray for him - may the grace of the Most Holy Spirit descend on him.”
— Since then, successively and without interruption, all members of our three-order hierarchy (bishops, presbyters and deacons) have been ordained in a legal order in the Church, through episcopal ordination in the sacrament of the Priesthood.
- Christ appointed the Apostles to shepherd His Church, they ordained bishops, those who followed, and so on until our days. If there is a break where there is a break, as with heretical sectarians, there is no Priesthood, but there is suicide and death.
This is what the adherents of the theory of continuous ordination teach. This is a kind of church “electric circuit”. A religious “plug” is inserted into a socket (the apostolic century), and in the 21st century a light bulb comes on—the Bishop.

But what to do if the “light” doesn’t light up? Why doesn't the ordained bishop shine the light of the gospel? If the light does not light, there is a break in the “circuit”, but the bishop is correctly ordained, i.e. There is a “chain”, but there is still no light. Let's turn to God to understand this difficult issue. Let's listen carefully to what "The Spirit speaks to the churches".
To do this, we will look into the Scriptures (the books of the Old Testament), which contain priceless stories. They will help shed light on this topic. The God of the ancient righteous is our God. He hasn't changed. He always took care of spiritual leaders and looked for their successors. The Lord was always looking for husbands “according to your own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). The Creator has always taken care that this holy relay of the Spirit does not fade away. This relay of God's chosenness can be clearly seen throughout the entire Holy Scripture. Some leaders were replaced by other leaders whom God chose to serve others. These new names will appear again and again throughout human history, until the day Jesus appears from heaven.
Why did God choose some and reject others? How did some chosen ones pass on to others the good gift of the Spirit? What role did the hand or the sacred oil play in this spiritual relay? Was the external or internal given priority? What is the formula for transferring power and leadership? To these important questions, as we analyze the sacred stories, the answer will begin to emerge.

And the Lord looked upon Abel

Before we turn to the history of Israel, which is very rich in the material that interests us, let's look at the history of the children of the primordial Adam - Cain and Abel. Everyone knows that Cain killed his brother Abel. What caused the first murder on earth? What is the reason for Cain's rage and uncontrollable anger towards Abel? It turns out that this one is very ancient history is directly related to our topic.
“After some time, Cain brought a gift to the Lord from the fruits of the ground,
and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat.” (Gen.4:3,4)
This was not a simple sacrifice to God in gratitude for a good harvest. It was a competition, it was a competition between two contenders for the championship.
Adam himself is not mentioned at all in this story, as if he had withdrawn so that only God could be the judge. Or maybe the father, knowing the violent character of his eldest son, was afraid to tell him about his unworthiness?
“And the Lord looked upon Abel and his gift, but did not look upon Cain and his gift. Cain was greatly saddened, and his face fell.” (Gen.4:4,5)
God gave primacy not to the elder Cain, but to his younger brother. God elevated Abel above Cain and the other descendants of Adam. Cain clearly did not count on the fact that seniority would not be given to him. His pride was greatly hurt. What is the logic of the reasoning of the rejected and distressed Cain? He reasoned something like this:
- Since God allowed me to be the first to be born, then this means there is a sign from above. My father Adam was also created first in relation to mother Eve, and he dominated.
Cain's reasoning is not without common sense. The Apostle Paul, discussing the eternal primacy of a husband over his wife, also pointed out as an argument the primacy of Adam in relation to Eve:
“But I do not allow a wife to teach, nor to rule over her husband, but to be in silence. For Adam was created first, and then Eve..." (1 Tim. 2:12-13)
However, in God's opinion, Cain's external and carnal advantage was clearly not enough. The Creator of the world looked at the heart. By internal state, in spirit Cain was inferior to Abel, so he was rejected as a leader.
This article can already end. For discerning people, this story alone is enough to understand the topic of apostolic succession. However, let's continue. There are many such instructive stories ahead.

And he placed Ephraim above Manasseh

Looking ahead a little, I want to draw your attention to one of the names of God. When God spoke to Moses, he introduced himself like this: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Ex.3:6)
Thousands of years later, God is called the same way - Jesus, Peter, Stephen. What is this? And this is the formula for the continuity of the Spirit. In this name of God lies our whole theme.
But this chain of names, this sequence of God’s chosen ones, which has already become familiar to us, could have been completely different. A modern proponent of continuous ordination would never have chosen Isaac as Abraham's successor. The Orthodox, if he were a contemporary of the patriarchs, would recognize Esau as the legal heir, and call Jacob a sectarian.
“If the Lord were not with us, let Israel say” (Ps. 123:1)
Let us turn to the moment when God chooses a man named Abram to become the founder of God's new people. The Lord makes a covenant with Abram and says that he will have many descendants, like the stars in the sky. Abram serves God faithfully. Years pass, but he still has no children. At one point, Abram complains to God:
- “Behold, you have not given me descendants, and behold, one of my household (Eleazar of Damascus) is my heir” (Gen. 15:3)
But God rejects this candidacy:
- “He will not be your heir; but the one who comes from your body will be your heir” (Gen. 15:4)
Time passes, and still no son. Sarah, seeing that the years are passing, taking the initiative, invites Abraham to “enter” her servant Hagar in order to have a child with her. (The laws of that time permitted such actions and this was not a sin.) And indeed, a son, Ishmael, (“God hears”) is born from Abraham and Hagar. Ishmael is Abraham's firstborn.
12 years pass. God again appears to Abram, commanding him to henceforth be called Abraham (“father of the multitude”) and tells him the stunning news that 100-year-old Abraham and 90-year-old Sarah will have a son. And it is he who will be Abraham's heir!
“God said: Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you will call his name Isaac; And I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.” (Gen.17:19)
What about Ishmael? Is he the same son of Abram?
“And concerning Ishmael I have heard you: behold, I will bless him, and will make him grow, and multiply him greatly, greatly...
But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this very time next year.” (Gen.17:20-21)
God's choice was not in favor of Ishmael, the eldest (in the flesh) son of Abraham, but the youngest, so that Isaac would be the heir and successor of Abraham after him. Seniority is given to Isaac, God's chosen one:
“Thy seed shall be named in Isaac” (Gen. 21:12)
Isaac, the heir of the covenant, was born according to the Word of the Lord. The Apostle Paul, commenting on these events, concludes:
“That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are recognized as the seed.” (Rom.9:8)
A similar story happens with the children of Isaac. After Rebekah became Isaac’s wife and became pregnant, “the sons began to beat in her womb, and she said: If this happens, then why do I need this? And she went to ask the Lord.” (Gen.25:22)
God answers her and speaks about the future of these children:
“The Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb, and two different nations will come out of your womb”;
Next, God lifts the veil of time and speaks a secret: “One nation will become stronger than the other, and the greater will serve the lesser.” (Gen.25:23)
In other words:
— Seniority will be given not to the eldest son, but to the youngest.
Esau was born first, after whom Jacob was born, holding on to his brother's heel. When Isaac grew old, he decided to bless his firstborn, the eldest son Esau, so that he would become “lord over his brothers and that his mother’s sons should worship him” (Gen. 27:29).
In other words:
— Isaac decided to ordain Esau, his firstborn and favorite, as leader and successor after himself. But God’s choice was not in favor of Esau, but in favor of Jacob, and he, with the help of his mother (who knew this secret even before the birth of the children), in fulfillment of the Word of God, miraculously receives Isaac’s blessing.
“Isn’t Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord; and yet he hated Esau...” (Mal.1:2,3)
Esau's rejected reaction was very similar to Cain's:
“And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him; and Esau said in his heart, “The days of mourning for my father are approaching, and I will kill Jacob my brother.” (Gen.27:41)
The same principle of being chosen not by external signs can be traced in the story of the children of Jacob. Grandson Abraham had 12 sons. And so the eleventh child, named Joseph, dreams interesting dream. Joseph naively tells the dream to his older brothers:
“Behold, we are binding sheaves in the middle of the field; and behold, my sheaf rose up and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves stood round and bowed down to my sheaf.
And his brothers said to him, “Will you really reign over us?” will you really rule over us? And they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.” (Gen.37:7)
But the 17-year-old boy had another dream, which he could not resist telling his father and brothers:
“Behold, I saw another dream: behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars worship me.” (Gen.37:9)
“... and his father rebuked him and said to him: What is this dream that you saw? Shall I and your mother and your brothers come to bow down to the ground before you?” (Gen.37:10)
Unlike the angry brothers, God's chosen one Jacob drew attention to this: “His brothers were angry with him, but his father noticed this word” (Gen. 37:11)
Joseph is God's chosen one, after Jacob. God gave him seniority. He was preferred over Jacob's other children. Joseph's subsequent story clearly confirms that God's choice was correct.
The same story happened to Joseph's children. Joseph had two sons in Egypt. The firstborn was Manasseh, the second was Ephraim. Joseph was informed that his father Jacob was sick. Joseph takes his two sons with him and goes to the aged Jacob so that he would bless them before his death.
“And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand against Israel’s left, and Manasseh in his left hand against Israel’s right, and brought them to him.
But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, although he was the youngest, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh. He put his hands this way with intention, even though Manasseh was the firstborn.” (Gen.48:13-14)
This was no ordinary blessing.
“And Joseph saw that his father had laid his right hand on Ephraim’s head; and it was unfortunate for him. And he took his father's hand to transfer it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh,
And Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, for this is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.” (Gen.48:17-18)
Apparently Joseph thought that his father was old, his eyes became dull and he got confused.
“But his father did not agree and said: I know, my son, I know; and from him shall come a nation, and he shall be great; but his younger brother will be greater than he, and from his seed will come a numerous nation.
And he blessed them that day, saying, Through thee shall Israel bless, saying, God do unto thee as unto Ephraim and Manasseh. And he made Ephraim superior to Manasseh.” (Gen.48:19-20)

Oh that all the Lord's people were prophets

Let's explore the Scripture further... The Jews settle in Egypt and live well with Joseph alive. But Joseph dies at the age of 110. Another king rises in Egypt and begins to mistreat the fertile people of Israel. He enslaves these people, forcing them to do backbreaking work. This is not enough, Pharaoh issues a decree to kill every Jewish boy born. Boys are the future of war. Having matured, one of them can rebel, become a leader and deprive the Pharaoh of so many slaves. In exactly the same way, 2 thousand years later, King Herod will act, killing all children from 3 years old and below, in order to mow down his rival, the newly born King, with this deadly scythe. But the future Leader of our salvation miraculously survived. This is how it was in those distant days. One boy miraculously survived, and even ended up in the house of Pharaoh to be raised, where he was given the name Moses. When Moses reached the age of 40, “it came into his heart to visit his brothers the children of Israel. And, seeing one of them being offended, he stood up and took revenge for the offended one, striking the Egyptian.” (Acts 7:24)
Moses acts decisively and by this action seems to say:
- Brothers! Why do you tolerate such mockery of yourself? We must decisively put an end to this shameful slavery.
“He thought that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand; but they didn't understand.
The next day, when some of them were fighting, he appeared and persuaded them to peace, saying: you are brothers; Why do you offend each other?
But the one who offended his neighbor pushed him away, saying: “Who made you a leader and a judge over us?” (Acts 7:25-27)
The question arose about the formal legitimacy of Moses' authority, which he really did not have. Yes, none of the people really gave Moses any authority, but he had actions, there were actions that none of the Jews could dare to take. But unfortunately, for the enslaved Jews, they did not see in Moses the leader of their salvation. The price of inattention is an extra 40 years of humiliating slavery. And all this for inattention to the actions of the Lord, who wanted to save his people. Please note that 40 years of walking in the wilderness, when God did not allow the unbelieving generation into the promised land, were preceded by these 40 years. One generation died in Egypt, another died in the desert.
From Abel to Moses we see the same picture.
1. When choosing a spiritual leader, God gives priority not to the external, formal and carnal, but to the internal, invisible.
2. True shepherds are constantly persecuted by their “counterparts”. Cain kills Abel. Ishmael mocks Isaac. Esau wants to kill Jacob. They get rid of Joseph by selling him into slavery. Moses is “handed over” to the oppressors.
3. But God continues to “push his line.” Instead of the murdered Abel, the righteous Seth is born, and Cain is expelled. Isaac grows up, and Ishmael, who was annoying him, is taken aside. Jacob remains alive, and Esau resigns himself to his fate. Joseph does not die, and saves the descendants of Abraham. Rejected in his youth, Moses, 40 years later, becomes in demand for Israel.
I would like to address my contemporaries:
- If in your community it is not the Kingdom of God, but a Pharisee state... If you are powerless sheep, and there are unscrupulous wolves behind the pulpit... If instead of freedom in Christ there is church slavery... It means that somewhere nearby is a modern Moses, through whom God wants to save you. Be attentive to the actions of the Lord. Your fate depends on it.
Young prophets are sometimes naive (why did Joseph tell his dreams to his brothers?) They lack experience and caution (the example of Moses). But time passes and this “ugly duckling” grows into a beautiful white swan.
Let me turn to the modern “Moses”:
- Don’t be embarrassed by the fact that they don’t listen to you (woe from mind). Be patient and don't give up. Look at the fate of Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and similar chosen ones of God and draw the right conclusion.
40 years later, God sends Moses for the second time, now matured, to Israel in slavery. If earlier Moses himself took the initiative, now God has to persuade his chosen one to take on this difficult task. However, Moses doubts his success, remembering his first unsuccessful attempt and pointing out his lack of eloquence, asks God to send someone else:
“Moses said: Lord! send someone else whom you can send.” (Ex.4:13)
There is no other Moses. God additionally equips the savior of Israel with the gift of miracles and gives him the eloquent Aaron as an assistant.
Power is a heavy burden. Power means great responsibility and hard work. Life of Moses - good for that confirmation.
“And Moses said to the Lord: Why are You tormenting Your servant? and why have I not found mercy in Thy sight, that Thou hast laid upon me the burden of all this people?
Did I carry all this people in my womb, and did I give birth to him, that You say to me: Carry him in your arms, as a nurse carries a child” (Num. 11:11-12)
God, deciding to help Moses in this difficult work, says:
“And the Lord said to Moses, Gather for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be their elders and officers, and take them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you;
I will go down and talk to you there, and I will take from the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, so that they will bear the burden of the people with you, and you will not bear it alone.” (Num. 11:16-17)
God wants to ordain 70 assistants to help the leader.
“Moses went out and spoke the words of the Lord to the people, and gathered seventy men from the elders of the people and set them around the tabernacle.
And the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was on him and gave it to seventy elder men. And when the Spirit rested on them, they began to prophesy, but then they stopped.
Two of the men remained in the camp, one's name was Eldad, and the other's name was Modad; but the Spirit rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp.” (Num. 11:24-26)
A sign of empowerment was prophecy. Today's orthodox zealots would clearly be outraged by the modern Eldad and Modad prophesying. Their logic is simple:
- Since you did not approach the tabernacle (the external form was not observed), then the Spirit cannot be on you.
But Moses’ young and zealous assistant, Joshua, behaved in exactly the same way: “... my lord Moses! forbid them. But Moses said to him, “Are you not jealous for me?” Oh, that all the Lord’s people would be prophets, that the Lord would send His Spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:28-29)
But then the time comes when Moses must die, and he asks God to give the Jews a leader in his place:
“May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, place a man over this congregation,
who would go out before them and who would come in before them, who would lead them out and who would bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord would not remain like sheep that have no shepherd.
And the Lord said to Moses, Take unto you Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hand on him” (Num. 27:16-18)
Moses ordains Joshua, giving him the authority to lead the congregation of the Lord. Notice that Moses ordains his successor, in whom "there is Spirit". What does this mean? This eloquently suggests that the laying on of hands even then was not a sacrament, not magical effect, but a solemn ritual (rite) in which there was nothing supernatural. Ordination, like anointing with oil, are ancient documents, this is a certificate (our modern documents are called “certificate”. Marriage certificate, birth certificate, etc.). Ordination is a certificate of authority. Evidence for people of God’s completed election.
Remember how the Apostle Paul, to prove the importance of FAITH, and not circumcision, hooked on one story with Abraham:
“For what does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom.4:3)
Then the “chosen vessel” unexpectedly suggests looking at all this from a different angle:
“When did you get imputed? after circumcision or before circumcision? (Rom.4:10)
- But really...
“Not after circumcision, but before circumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness through the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he became the father of all who believed while uncircumcised, so that righteousness might be imputed to them also” (Rom. 4:11).
Moses' successor, Joshua, already had the Spirit of the Lord even before his ordination, which was confirmed by his God-pleasing behavior, when he and Caleb showed loyalty to God, being among the 12 spies sent to the promised land.

The Lord will find Himself a husband after His own heart

The Book of Judges of Israel is an amazing book. As we read it, we see how God regularly raised up leaders for Israel. These judges were from different tribes, not closely related, but acted in one Spirit.
“And the Lord raised up judges for them, who saved them from the hands of their robbers;
When the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord Himself was with the judge and saved them from their enemies all the days of the judge: for the Lord had compassion on them, hearing their groan from those who oppressed and oppressed them.” (Judges 2:16-19)
Here they are, the chosen ones of God: Othniel, Ehud the left-hander, Samegar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Thola, Jairus, Jephath, Samson. All these chosen ones of God did not have any human ordination or anointing with oil. There was no “chain”, no transfer of power from one judge to another. They didn't even see each other in the eye! However, their exploits and lives testified that the “hand of the Lord” was on them.
The 1st book of Samuel describes the fate of the judge of Israel - Elijah, who had two sons - Hophni and Phinehas.
“But the sons of Eli were worthless people; they did not know the Lord.” (1 Samuel 2:12) The Holy Scripture gives them this description. After the death of their father, one of them would take the helm of the Israeli society. However, instead of the people who disgraced His name, God puts an unknown boy named Samuel as leader.
“Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: Then I said, “Your house and your father’s house will walk before Me forever.” But now the Lord says: Let it not be so, for I will glorify those who glorify Me, and those who dishonor Me will be put to shame.” (1 Samuel 2:30)
This was the last judge from God before another period in the history of Israel - the era of kings.
“When Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel.
His eldest son's name was Joel, and his second son's name was Abijah; they were judges at Beersheba.
But his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside into greed and took gifts and judged wrongly.” (1 Samuel 8:1-4)
Could Samuel really not teach his children the commandments of the Lord? The Prophet chose the names of the children with the best intentions. Joel - “Jehovah is God.” Abijah - “my father is Jehovah.” But the children also had in their father the best example, for which they did not have to go to distant lands.
Scripture says: "Samuel made his sons judges over Israel". What does it mean? This means that he laid his hands on them, prayed and gave instructions. But Scripture testifies: “But his sons walked not in his ways.”. Samuel was unable to convey to them the Spirit that was upon him and his children, alas, were only carnal heirs. The human hand is a poor conductor of the Spirit.
“And all the elders of Israel assembled and came to Samuel at Ramah,
and they said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways”; (1 Samuel 8:4-5)
Up to this point, the speech of the elders is absolutely correct, and everything would be fine if they then said something like the following:
“Now Samuel ask the Lord, as Moses once did, and let God, who knows the heart, show you who to appoint as leader after you.”
But the speech of the elders looked like this: “Therefore set a king over us, so that he may judge us like other nations.” (1 Samuel 8:5)
"Other Nations"- these are pagans. The elders are looking for a way out of this situation. However, they see improvement in leadership in a different, pagan form of government.
“And Samuel did not like this saying, when they said, Give us a king, that he may judge us.” (1 Samuel 8:6)(To me personally, this story is very reminiscent of the situation with the first Christian emperor Constantine)
Why did Samuel not like this initiative of the elders? It's not about the new name of the leader. The king of the eastern peoples is a despot. The king was a living deity, and the king's word was law. Everything that was connected with the king was sacred and sacred. The book of the prophet Daniel describes the moment when the official royal decree of Darius could no longer be canceled even by the king himself. The prophet Daniel was thrown into the lions' den, against the wishes of Darius himself. (Dan. 6 ch.). For the same reason, his son Jonathan was almost killed by King Saul when he unintentionally violated his father’s royal order: “I tasted... a little honey; and behold, I must die.” (1 Samuel 14:43) The people barely defended Jonathan, by whose hand the victory over the enemy was won.
There was another pitfall in the idea of ​​the kingdom. Royal power was passed on by inheritance, from father to son. If previously God sent leadership from Himself, choosing a judge Himself from any tribe, now power will be transferred by carnal inheritance from the father-king to the son. If the king is a righteous man, it is not a fact that his son will inherit the spirit of his father. What if there are no worthy sons? What then? Then there's trouble. Nothing can be changed. The Jews tied themselves down and made them dependent not on God, but on chance. It was almost impossible to influence this situation. This significantly deprived God of maneuver in the ability to place the righteous in power. The era of the kings of Israel is mainly the era of wicked kings. The righteous kings can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is why the institution of prophets arose, through whom God acted, as opposed to the wicked Kings, officially endowed with power.
“And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, so that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:6-7)
Even after Samuel announced to them the unfavorable consequences that awaited them under a king with unlimited power, the people did not change their thoughts.
“... and then you will rebel against your king, whom you have chosen for yourself; and the Lord will not answer you then.
But the people did not agree to obey the voice of Samuel, and said: no, let the king be over us" (1 Samuel 8:18,19)
Samuel makes Saul king over Israel by pouring sacred oil on his head. But already in the second year of his reign, the young Tsar twice disobeyed the commands of the Lord. To which Samuel says: “The Lord will find for Himself a man after His own heart and will command him to be the leader of His people” (1 Sam. 13:14)
Saul is an example for all bishop-presbyters who decided to shepherd the Church not according to the Word of the Lord. Church leaders think that since they have been ordained as a pastor, grace still remains on them, no matter how much they deviate from the teachings of Christ. San is on his own, a man on his own. Lulling the excited parishioners to sleep, they came up with an original rationale: “The impression from gold and lead seals is the same” (Gregory the Theologian).
Saul's example shows just the opposite. Saul was appointed leader of God's people by Samuel himself, but he soon abandoned obedience to God.
Saul's reign was a great burden for Israel. Samuel grieved over the “imprint” that the apostate Saul left on the people of Israel. If God had thought the same way as St. Gregory, he would have said to the saddened Samuel:
- Don't be sad, Samuel! The imprint of this lead seal is the same as that of the gold one!
However, God was not at all happy with such an “imprint.” The devil was satisfied with such an “imprint”, but God was not. The Lord urgently intervenes in this situation and says to Samuel:
“And the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected, lest he should be king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided a king for Myself among his sons.
And Samuel said, How shall I go? Saul will hear and kill me." (1 Samuel 16:1-3)
Elder Samuel fears Saul's revenge, since he knew well how Cain, Esau and others like them behaved. False shepherds always destroyed their competitors with manic rage. ( The high priests Caiaphas and Annas will do the same in the future towards Jesus Christ.) Samuel secretly anoints young David, unknown to anyone, as king over Israel, while King Saul is alive.
In choosing David, God is again guided by the same principles as in choosing Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and other chosen ones. God's choice again was a surprise even to the prophet Samuel, as it once was to Abraham when choosing Isaac, to Isaac when choosing Jacob, to Jacob when choosing Joseph, and to Joseph when choosing Ephraim:
"He(Samuel) When he saw Eliab, he said: Surely this is His anointed before the Lord!
But the Lord said to Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature; I rejected him; I don't look the way a person looks; For man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
And Jesse called Abinadab and brought him to Samuel, and Samuel said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this.”
And Jesse brought Sammah down, and Samuel said, And this the Lord hath not chosen.
So Jesse brought his seven sons to Samuel, but Samuel said to Jesse: The Lord has not chosen any of these.
And Samuel said to Jesse, Are all the children here? And Jesse answered: There is an even smaller one; he is tending sheep. And Samuel said to Jesse, Send and take him, for we will not sit down to dine until he comes here.
And Jesse sent and brought him. He was blond, with beautiful eyes and a pleasant face. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for it is he.”
God is again guided not by the external, but by the internal. God looks not at the visible, but at the invisible.
“And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him among his brethren, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon David from that day forward.” (1 Samuel 16:13)
Adherents of the sacrament of ordination can point us to this episode as proof of their rightness: “And the Spirit of the Lord rested upon David from that day onward.”. Supporters of the sacralization of sacred rituals should note that David will officially become king only many years later:
“And the men of Judah came and anointed David there to be king over the house of Judah” (2 Samuel 2:4)
“And all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel" (2 Samuel 5:3)
This secret anointing was unofficial. No one recognized this anointing, including David’s brothers. David's secret anointing was manifested in his Godly actions, which were noticed only by discerning people, of whom, as we know, are a minority. Only many years later would it become clear to all of Israel that David truly had the right to officially reign. But this will not happen soon...
If everything is governed by a sacred ritual-sacrament, then why did the Spirit of God leave Saul, without any formalities and rituals?
“But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” (1 Samuel 16:14)
The apostate remains in power in Israel, and the true heir of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is forced to wander through the deserts and mountains, pursued by the spiritual heir of Cain and Esau.

the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha

After David, the royal throne was inherited not by his eldest son Absalom, who rebelled against his father, but by the son of that same Bathsheba, the wise Solomon. The compiler of wise parables and the organizer of the first temple, in turn, could not convey wisdom to his son, Rehoboam, who received the nickname “poor-minded.” Such is the law of the transmission of the Spirit, which is transmitted not by flesh, not by blood, not by the desire of the husband, but as God himself wants it.
In this regard, the history of the relationship between Elijah and Elisha is interesting. When the time came for the prophet Elijah to end his life's journey, God commanded him to leave behind a spiritual heir - another prophet for Israel.
“And the Lord said to him: Now anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat from Abel-meholah to be a prophet in your place.” (1 Kings 19:15-17)
Before his ascension, Elijah asks his zealous disciple, who did not lag behind him a single step: “Ask what you can do before I am taken from you” (2 Kings 2:9)
In response, the modern Orthodox would only shrug his shoulders and think to himself something like this:
- I’ve already been ordained... What else could I be missing?
But the real successor of the prophet behaves differently:
“And Elisha said, Let the spirit that is in you be doubled on me.” (2 Kings 2:9)
In response, Elijah says: “And he said: What you are asking is difficult.” (2 Kings 2:10)
Translated into more understandable language, Elijah seems to say:
“You are asking the impossible from me, you are asking from me something that does not belong to me and I cannot dispose of it.”
And pointing to the zealous disciple the One who truly possesses this right, Elijah continues his speech like this:
“If you see me taken from you, it will be so for you, but if you do not see it, it will not be so.” (2 Kings 2:11)
Elijah worries about the cause of God. He wants to see confirmation that Elisha will indeed be his successor and continue his work. That's why he starts this conversation.
“As they walked and talked along the way, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated them both, and Elijah rushed into heaven in a whirlwind.
Elisha looked and exclaimed: My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and his cavalry! And I didn’t see him again. And he grabbed his clothes and tore them in two.
And he picked up Elijah's mantle that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan;
and he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water with it, and said, Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah—He Himself? And he struck the water, and it parted this way and that, and Elisha crossed over.
And the sons of the prophets who were in Jericho saw him from afar, and said: The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha. And they went to meet him and bowed down to the ground.” (2 Kings 2:11-15)
In the same way, once the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and began to ask that her sons sit one on the right hand and the other on the left near Christ the King. To which Jesus replied: “To let them sit on My right hand and on My left does not depend on Me, but on whom My Father has prepared.” (Matt. 20:23)
The power of whom to impart the Spirit belongs to God and Him alone. He does not need any advisers; He rewards only the worthy with the Spirit. God's choices are often very unexpected. Bearers of the Spirit, no matter how much they wish, cannot transfer the Spirit to another person, either through the laying on of hands or through anointing with oil. They cannot ask God for a candidate, much less force Him, through the above-mentioned external rituals. They must find a worthy candidate and ask the Lord about him. And if God rejects this candidacy, then do not resist the will of God, but trust Him. However, the true bearers of the Spirit themselves know this “mechanism” for choosing a worthy successor and there is no need to explain it to them.
God's election to leadership must necessarily manifest itself in a person's life and be confirmed by the testimony of other carriers of the Spirit. This rule is clearly seen in the life of Joseph. The first-born of Jacob's children was Reuben, and Joseph was born only the eleventh. Life has put everything in its place. Before his death, Jacob confirmed Joseph's primacy over his brothers and explained why.
“Reuben, my firstborn! you are my strength and the beginning of my strength, the height of dignity and the height of power;
but you raged like water - you will not prevail, for you ascended to your father’s bed, you desecrated my bed, you ascended.” (Gen.49:3-4)
Reuben's advantage was taken away and his father explained why.
“Joseph is the branch of the fruitful tree, the branch of the fruitful tree above the spring; its branches extend over the wall;
upset him, and the archers shot at him and fought against him,
but his bow remained strong, and the muscles of his hands were strong, from the hands of the mighty God of Jacob. From there is the Shepherd and the stronghold of Israel,
from God your father, who will help you, and from the Almighty, who will bless you with the blessings of heaven above, the blessings of the deep that lies below, the blessings of the breasts and the womb,
the blessings of your father, which exceed the blessings of the ancient mountains and the pleasantness of the everlasting hills; let them be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the chosen one among his brothers.” (Gen.49:22-26)

no one accepts this honor by itself

In general, the theme of chosenness runs like a red thread throughout Scripture. Election of the righteous to implement God's plans. The selection of an entire people, such as Israel, in the midst of pagan states, for a special mission. Choosing the leaders of God's people. The election of Christ Jesus as the savior of the world.
Before we move on to the New Testament era, it is necessary to clarify the concept of the priesthood.
The first priest of the chosen people as such was Moses’ brother, Aaron. He was called “high priest”, his children were “priests”. Aaron and his children were entrusted by God with the responsibility of overseeing everything that was done in the tabernacle of meeting (later in the Temple), everything related to sacrifices, which is written about in detail in the book of Leviticus. The tribe of Levi was given to help them. After the death of the high priest, his eldest son took his place. The “Priesthood” did not make a person a superman. “Priest”, from the word – DEDICATION, i.e. election by God to a special, honorable work-service from others, and no one else had the right to do this. (Example of Korah, Dathan and Abiron)
“And no one accepts this honor of his own accord, but he who is chosen of God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:4)
This continued until the true High Priest came - Christ. The one sent from God, the true High Priest, Jesus, was killed by the lawfully appointed High Priest of Israel, Caiaphas. There is nothing new in this significant act, if we remember how Cain, Esau and other representatives of the carnal succession acted. Caiaphas turned out to be the true spiritual successor of the murderer Cain.
Since the time of Saul and David, a new institution of power has appeared in Israel - the kingdom. Royal power was passed on from father to son. Kings, like High Priests, were anointed with sacred oil when vested with power. This continued until the God-promised King of Israel, Christ Jesus, came.
Jesus Christ united in himself the true High Priest and the true King. He founded His Kingdom - the Church, all of whose members received a special, exalted status. An ordinary member of this society surpassed John the Baptist himself in glory: “he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Therefore, the Apostle Peter calls all Christians without exception: “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5). And further: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9)
John also writes about this: “To Him, who loved us and washed us from our sins in His Blood and made us kings and priests to His God and Father, be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen” (Rev. 1:5,6).
The Church of Jesus Christ is a kingdom consisting of only priests, i.e. people especially close to God and dedicated by Him to various ministries: “There are different ministries, but the Lord is the same.” (1 Cor. 12:5) That is why the Apostle Paul called his ministry a sermon: “Let us perform sacred acts” (Rom. 15:16)
If the entire Church is priests, then where did a separate group of people come from who only call themselves priests? On what basis do these people believe that they are fulfilling a special mission of mediation, assigned only to them, between the high priest Christ and the rest of the church?
Let us turn to Apostolic times. Is there any mention of priests in the first Church?
“As they spoke to the people, the priests and the captains of the temple guard and the Sadducees came to them,
being annoyed that they teach the people and preach in Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts 4:1-2)
“And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem; and many of the priests submitted to the faith.” (Acts 6:7)
From these two examples from the historical book of Acts, it is quite clear that we are talking about temple priests offering sacrifices according to the Law of Moses.
And in the letters of the Apostles there is not a single mention of priests as a special group within the Church.
In the article: I described how monks in the Middle Ages, led by the spirit of asceticism, corrected sacred texts and added the word “fast” to them at their discretion.
A similar story happened with the term “priesthood.” Only here a different technology of forgery was used. Technology, as they say now, of “incorrect” translation.
“How do you say, “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us”? But the lying reed of the scribes turns him into a lie” (Jer. 8:8)
Supporters of the priestly caste often cite as evidence their favorite passage from Paul's letter to Timothy:

According to their concepts, the Apostle singled out special people, calling them the priesthood. It is known that the educated Paul, who was primarily oriented towards the Gentiles, wrote his letters in Greek. Let's look at the original and see what word is written where in the Slavic translation, and after it in the Synodal Russian translation of the 19th century, the word “priesthood” appears. In the original Greek (GREEK NEW TESTAMENT) the word is written: for some reason translated by the Orthodox as “priesthood”. You don't need to be fluent in Greek to read it correctly as: PRESBYTER. What does this change? What's the difference: a priest or an elder? There is a big difference.
The leaders of the first church communities were called presbyters and bishops. These were identical concepts. The Greek word “elder” is translated as “elder.” This is an analogue of the Hebrew word “zagen”, i.e. “elder” (literally: “gray-bearded”). This term indicates both the age and spiritual maturity of a person. Another Greek term “bishop” was translated as “overseer”, i.e. the one who supervised. Please note that the words “presbyter” (senior) and “bishop” (supervisor) are devoid of sacred connotations. There is nothing mysterious about these names. Everything is simple and clear. Bishop-elders performed the functions of leaders, mentors, counselors, shepherds and elder brothers for ordinary church members. All these actions were aimed only at helping the Christian grow spiritually. They did not have only one function - the priestly one, which is associated with a cleansing sacrifice. This function belongs only to Christ. Only the Lamb Jesus, having sacrificed Himself, cleanses the person who believes in the Gospel and introduces him into His Kingdom - the Church. Only He cleanses the sinner with His Blood and makes him holy and blameless before God. Only after this one-time cleansing does Christ trust the good shepherd (presbyter-bishop) with the flock for whom He shed His blood.
Others mistakenly think that the New Testament serves as some kind of amendment to the Law. The Teachings of Christ are a kind of novel, designed to improve some provisions of the Mosaic legislation, without touching the foundation itself. This is exactly how the first church heretics thought. For them, FAITH was an addition to the commandments. Strange as it may seem, even the Bible itself now feeds this delusion, in its external form, because... Many people perceive the Bible as a single organism. The Bible consists of two unequal parts. The first, large and voluminous one is the books of the Old Testament. The second, small one is the books of the New Testament. The first, impressive part looks like the main contract with God, and the second, small part looks like an addition to this contract.
However, the New Testament was in every sense a NEW AGREEMENT! He was completely different! Therefore, the result was different - complete reconciliation with God. Complete liberation from sin and complete forgiveness!
“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this; for it is said:
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their hearts, and write them on their minds,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
But where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no need for an offering for them” (Heb. 10:14-18)
Proponents of the ordained priesthood like to quote this phrase from the book of Hebrews:
“With the change of the priesthood there must be a change of the law.” (Heb.7:12)
“You see,” they say, the priesthood cannot be abolished, but only changed. There were priests in Israel and there should be priests in the Church.
When you hear such “evidence”, do not forget that in front of you is a religious cheater or a slave of this system, deceived by the propaganda of lies. Remember that such reasoning is designed for the elementary ignorance of people who are too lazy to look into the letters of the Apostles and think for themselves.
Representatives of the church priestly caste, having understood the “change of priesthood” in their own way, like an apple from an apple tree, did not stray far from the Old Testament forms. Or rather, what they left from is what they came to. They definitely need to build temples (large and expensive) in which they perform sacred functions. They always dress in special, priestly clothes and burn incense. They also take tithes and do not work. An old song in a new way.
So what did Paul mean when he wrote about a “change of priesthood”?
“So, if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what further need would there be for another priest to rise up in the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Because with the change of the priesthood there must be a change of the law.
For He of whom this is spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one approached the altar.
For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:11-14).
“The abolition of a former commandment occurs because of its weakness and uselessness,
for the law brought nothing to perfection; but a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" (Heb. 7:18,19)
Supporters of false "priesthood changes", for some reason they don’t think about another phrase found in the same sentence: "change of law". What means "change of law"? Its complete cancellation! Cancellation, not improvement.
But I want us to trace the course of the apostle’s reasoning, which is deadly for our opponents. Therefore we read further:
“For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:11-14).
What does it mean? This means that God chose Jesus as high priest, not according to the Law and in circumvention of the Law. If you want it according to the law, get Caiaphas. Want to "immaculate and not involved in evil", then you will have to rely not on the carnal (ordination, anointing with oil, genealogy), but on the personal qualities of the candidate.
“So Christ did not take upon Himself the glory of being a high priest, but He who said to Him, You are My Son, today I have begotten You” (Heb. 5:5)

God chose Jesus as the Christ (i.e., the Anointed One), just as He once chose Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and other righteous people for whom nothing “shone” if not for God, who does not look at the external, but on the internal. The Lord was guided in His choice by the personal positive qualities of people, and not by external criteria.
Paul would never have become an Apostle if it had not been for God. Formally, the places of the 12 Apostles were already taken. In place of the fallen Judas, Matthias was chosen (all free seats No!). But Saul-Paul (who did not walk with Jesus, did not see Him, and did not witness His resurrection) proved to be more prolific in spreading the Gospel than 12. To this day, the letters of this man occupy a central place in the canon of books of the New Testament (as they say : “for a clear advantage”). It’s scary to imagine if they weren’t there!
Therefore, Paul “chosen not by men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:1), and paid so much attention to the personal, positive qualities of the candidate for bishop-presbyter of the Church. These qualities are: “not arrogant, not wrathful, not a drunkard, not a murderer, not a covetous man, just, holding to the true word, consistent with doctrine, so that he may be able to teach sound doctrine and reprove those who resist” (Titus 1:7- 9) . These qualities will really come in handy when leading a community. But for performing “sacraments”, for temple rituals, for religious-mechanical sacred rites, these qualities are practically not needed.
The leaders of the Churches did not make any “New Testament sacrifices.” This sacrifice was once made by Jesus, offering "Self as a sacrifice." (Heb.9:28) Through this sacrifice, those who believe in Him receive complete liberation from the power of sin.
“For by one offering He has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).
Bishop-presbyters exercised pastoral and mentoring functions in relation to church members already cleansed by the blood of Christ.

in the bonds of untruth

What then is the meaning of ordination, mention of which we often find in the book of Acts and the letters of the Apostles? How to understand these phrases of Paul:

“Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Timothy 4:14)
There are several points to consider:
Firstly, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the ancient speech culture. This is how the Apostle writes about a woman 2000 years ago:
“However, he will be saved THROUGH childbearing, if he continues in faith and love and holiness with chastity” (1 Tim. 2:15)
The sentence is structured in such a way that if you read it “as written,” it turns out to be absurd. It turns out that the salvation of the soul is connected with the birth of children. A formula appears in the mind of the reader: “if you give birth, you will be saved.” And if a woman does not give birth, what then? In any religion it is not customary to think, it is customary to perform it, although it is not clear. Holiness, faith, love and chastity are relegated to the background in this proposal, although according to common sense they should of course prevail. Without a doubt, Paul placed faith, love and chastity at the forefront, and mentioned the birth of children in passing, recalling that family life is not an obstacle on the path to spiritual heights.
One more example:
“And I want you to be without worries. An unmarried man cares about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but a married man cares about the things of this world, how to please his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:32,33)
Again we have before us the speech of the Apostle, which in no case should be perceived as a formula. Is a married man really just a wife-beater? Paul's point is that a single person can become a missionary. This special ministry required that the missionary not be bound by the care of his wife and children. Missionary work was one of many ministries in the Lord, neither higher nor lower than others.
Secondly, it is necessary to clarify the term “ordination” itself. The verb “ordained” in Greek is rendered by the verb cheirotoneo, (“ordination”) which literally means “to choose by a show of hands.” This is the same verb that was used to describe how voting took place in the Athenian legislature. What is voting? Voting is, first of all, an EXPRESSION OF WILL. Through what symbol it is expressed is not important.
Thirdly, it was the pagans who gave sacred meaning to the rituals. For them, the words and actions of the priest, performed by him in a certain sequence, were a sacred untouchable formula. Any, even a slight deviation from this formula, crossed out and negated the desired result. Actually, that was magic. The pagan was absolutely sure that if the ritual was performed correctly, then the spiritual result would be achieved. The pagan mind was confident that through the external it was possible to influence the internal, through the visible to influence the invisible. The pagans essentially forced and coerced their gods through ritual. Christ himself warned his disciples against slipping into pagan thinking:
“And when you pray, do not talk too much, like the pagans, for they think that for their many words they will be heard” (Matt. 6:7)
"Verbosity", i.e. prolonged prayer, according to the pagans, led to the desired result. The external influenced the internal. Jesus gave His disciples not a long, but a very short prayer, “Our Father.”
In the book of Acts there is shining example, which is directly related to our topic. This is a story involving Simon Magus.
“There was a certain man in the city named Simon, who had previously practiced magic and astonished the people of Samaria, posing as someone great.
Everyone listened to him, from the smallest to the greatest, saying: This is the great power of God.
And they listened to him because for a considerable time he amazed them with his sorceries” (Acts 8:9-11).
When Philip arrived in Samaria with the good news, the people believed in the Gospel and were baptized.
“Simon himself believed and, having been baptized, did not leave Philip; and seeing great powers and signs being done, he was amazed” (Acts 8:13)
The former sorcerer was baptized and, seeing real miracles, he, amazed, did not leave the evangelist Philip.
“The Apostles who were in Jerusalem, hearing that the Samaritans had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John to them,
who, having come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
For He had not yet come upon any of them, but only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16).
Why did this situation arise? The fact is that the Samaritans have long been at enmity with the Jews. This enmity went back hundreds of years. The temple was in Jerusalem and Samaria. Due to religious hostility, the Jews did not accept Jesus in the Samaritan village, because... He “had the appearance of one traveling to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:53).
When the Samaritans accepted the Gospel, God wants from the first days to cure the long-standing disease of division and create one people in His Kingdom. The likelihood that the churches of Samaria would again begin to lead a separate life was very high.
The Samaritans, having believed in Jesus, of course received healing of their hearts from sin. They certainly received eternal life and peace with God. Then what does it mean: "He(Holy Spirit) I haven’t been to any of them yet.”? We are talking about one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the form of other tongues. This gift accompanied those who believed in Christ at the initial stage, serving as external proof that God accepted non-Jews into His Kingdom on an equal basis with purebred Jews.
“Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, brought them money,
saying: Give me this power, so that whoever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.
But Peter said to him: Let your silver perish with you, because you thought to receive the gift of God with money.
You have no part or lot in this, for your heart wrong before God.
So repent of this sin of yours, and pray to God: perhaps the thoughts of your heart will be forgiven you;
for I see you filled with bitter gall and in the bonds of wickedness" (Acts 8:17-24)
The former sorcerer, and now a “Christian,” brought money to the Apostles to buy a position. This act looks completely wild from the perspective of the teachings of Christ. However, Simon does this openly, due to the fact that priestly positions in the pagan world were bought and there was nothing wrong with that.
Peter reprimanded such a candidate, giving him far from positive characterization: “I see you filled with bitter gall and in the bonds of unrighteousness.”
But in the action of the former sorcerer there is one more moment that very accurately shows the thinking of the pagan: “Simon, seeing that through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given...”
Simon looks through the eyes of a pagan and sees a sacred rite in the laying on of hands. For him, the laying on of hands is a formula that gives the right and authority to bring down the Spirit.
“I’ll lay my hand and the Spirit will come.” If I don’t put it on, it won’t work.
Simon is located "in the bonds of untruth" I didn’t know that the Spirit could descend on people without ordination: (Acts 10:44). God never made Himself dependent on the will of man, much less a ritual. The “clay” cannot command the “Potter”.
The fact that “ordination” did not guarantee anything is well demonstrated by the episode in the life of Paul described in the book of Acts. Ap. Paul, having gathered together the elders of the city of Ephesus, said to them:
“For I know that after I am gone, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among yourselves men will arise who will speak perverse things, so as to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29,30)
Of these ordained elders, whom Paul himself personally taught for 3 years day and night, “People will arise who will speak perverse things.”
An ordained Elder of a church community had to rely not on the rite of ordination, but on a close, living relationship with the risen Jesus. Losing this connection and departing from the Gospel, such a bishop turned into an ordained "a fierce wolf, not sparing the herd". Such an ordained presbyter repeated the fate of King Saul, from whom “The Spirit of the Lord departed” (1 Samuel 16:14).

Without father, without mother, without pedigree

Ordination in the first Church founded by Christ was just a rite and ritual, devoid of mysterious content. It was a solemn, memorable, God-approved ritual of ordination, but not a “sacrament.” This solemn dedication to an important service in the Church, of course, evoked reverent experiences and emotions in the initiate. Indeed, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Himself chooses you for the most responsible service. Jesus Himself tells you: “Feed My sheep.”
The ordination as an elder took place in the presence of members of the Church. Ordination is an ancient document (certificate). The hand of the dedicator symbolized the hand of God. The ordained one had to strive to fulfill the accepted ministry. He was to grow and prosper in this election. The living God has only living relationships with his servants. No inertia, only a reaction to the instructions of the Living God. That's why Paul wrote to Timothy:
“For this reason I remind you to stir up the gift of God, which is in you through my laying on of hands” (2 Tim. 1:6)
“Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Timothy 4:14)
All the various ministries in the Church were called "gifts", because everything stemmed from the main gift - salvation in Christ.
And if ordination is not a symbol, but a “sacrament” that guarantees something, then why “warm” it? It “warms” itself.
As a leader in the Church, God has a special demand. The beginning of the Apocalypse begins with a “debriefing” of the leaders of the seven churches. Christ very strictly asks each shepherd for the state of affairs in the community: “... and if not so, I will soon come to you and remove your lamp from its place, unless you repent.” (Rev. 2:5) “I will remove your lamp” - i.e. I will remove you from the post of presbyter, despite your ordination.
Jesus did not promise the Church a quiet life on earth. Peaceful life was replaced by oppression and persecution of the followers of Christ. Human continuity in the form of ordination from one generation of Christians to another could only exist under ideal conditions. Attacks on the Church by pagans or heretics allied with strongmen of the world This, naturally, violated this human, visible relay of continuity. However, the Wise God has provided for everything. The severing of visible ties did not break the spiritual, invisible to the eye, connection between generations of Christians. The same God who once raised up Abraham, Moses, the judges and prophets of Israel, also raised up new leaders of the Church. The main thing is that the Spirit is the same.
In difficult times for the Church, when the organizational component was disrupted, a mechanism from God was turned on, never failing, operating according to the principle: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither the beginning of days nor the end of life, being like the Son of God” ( Heb.7:3)
It is not known from where new shepherds appeared, whom God raised and raised Himself to serve other Christians. For the time being scattered Christians gathered around these chosen ones. Naturally, these new leaders did not have human ordination. However, all the members of the Church, united around them, saw the hand of the Lord on them. The Spirit of God, manifested in the lives of these chosen ones, was the main document certifying their authority from God:
“Who is such not according to the law of carnal commandment, but according to the power of unceasing life” (Heb. 7:16)
Look carefully at the orthodox who believe that they have preserved the Apostolic succession through ordination. If there is ordination connecting them with the Apostles of Christ, then there must also be the Apostolic Spirit. As Paul said: “And he who is united to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17)
Look at the morality of their parishioners, what is it? The morals of the laity are very far from ideal. But maybe the morality of priests is at its best? Alas: “Like the priest, so is the parish.” Well, and vice versa: “what is the parish, so is the priest.” The ordination in which they trust and which they constantly trumpet on every corner as proof of Apostolic succession exists. But there is no Spirit manifesting itself in the lives of both priests and their parishioners. What role then does their ordination serve? Why do they hold on to him so tightly? What does it give them?
Ordination in their midst acts as a gate through which a stranger cannot penetrate. Only monastic slaves are allowed to enter this religious system. Only those who obediently agreed to serve monasticism will be allowed into power, through ordination, and then to the first - lowest level. Only those who have accepted monasticism can rise higher up the hierarchical levels - another gate. In theory, the best, the most honest and the smartest should be selected. However, in reality, things are exactly the opposite. Ordination promotes negative selection.
How can God change something for the better in this system that has been preserved for thousands of years? How to introduce your person into it? No way. The system will immediately identify him as a stranger and throw him out. That is why the Apostle wrote:
“Let us therefore go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13)
Nothing in this monastic system can be changed. You only need to get out of this church Babylon, saving your soul:
“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out from her, my people, lest you share in her sins, or receive her plagues” (Rev. 18:4)
With ordination in the orthodox environment, the same metamorphosis occurred as with the copper serpent once made by Moses. God once used it as a means of salvation from the poison of snakes that bit the Jews in the desert. However, later the Jews deified this instrument itself and began to worship it: “The children of Israel burned incense to him and called him Nehushtan” (2 Kings 18:4).
The symbol separated from its purpose and began to live an independent life. The ritual took the place of the spirit. The servant sat down in the master's place. Why common sense? Common sense is no longer needed.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap up for themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-5)
The first church used ordination as a symbol, as a ritual in placing a person into ministry. (Some kind of visible sign had to be used) However, this action was never given a mysterious and hidden meaning that endows a person with superpowers. You cannot ordain a caring mother, a good engineer, a skilled mason or a singer or artist. Is it possible to become a pastor of a church? After all, this is absurd. It `s Magic.
This absurdity in the Church benefits only the devil. Only he is interested in having an organization, a nomenclature without the Spirit. The evil spirit realized his plan in church Babylon, carrying out a brilliant special operation to rebuild the church through Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. God warned long ago about this coming church “restructuring” through his chosen ones. Particular attention is paid to this topic in the book Apocalypse.
Some members of the Orthodox Church, seeing the troubles and numerous deviations from the Gospel, tolerate the perpetrators of this mess. They naively believe that these bishops, no matter what they are, still preserve the apostolic succession within themselves through ordination in the so-called. sacrament of the priesthood.
“Although they are apostates, they are not heretics!”
If God approved of such a hope, then many stories found in Scripture would have to be rewritten or hidden from people. Based on this orthodox hope, only Saul (even an apostate) should have transferred power to David. However, God sends Samuel to pour holy oil on David, bypassing Saul. Saul had nothing good to impart to David. Saul could only bring down a sharp sword on the blond head of his “successor”. Only death could he convey to him. This is what he tried to do, chasing David throughout Israel. Miraculously surviving, David once shouted to his pursuer from a safe distance: “as the ancient parable says: “From the wicked come lawlessness” (1 Samuel 24:14)
From the lawless Saul came only lawlessness in the form of apostasy from the will of God and the murder of innocent people. Do you hear this, you who hope for the ordination of your Bishops, whom you can barely endure?! This is what the prophet David shouts to you through the centuries: “FROM THE LAWFUL COME LAWLESS!!!”
The ordination of the Orthodox performs not only the function of a gate that does not allow outsiders (smart, honest, courageous and sensible people) who could harm the system, as I wrote about above. Ordination is the gate of ecclesiastical Babylon, preventing prisoners from leaving this city. The doctrine of the ordained priesthood is like an ancient, well-guarded gate preventing captives from going free in Jesus. The doctrine of the ordained priesthood binds the minds of the prisoners of church Babylon, as if by chains. They would be glad to leave these Bishops, but they were convinced that such a teaching was instilled by the Apostles themselves. I just want to say to these unfortunate people:
- If they are not even to your heart, then even more so to God.
Tell me, you who hold on to your episcopal robes, does an Orthodox bishop look like the Apostles in appearance? The honest answer is no!
But maybe he is internally similar to the Apostles? Is he the bearer and custodian of the Apostles' Teachings about FAITH?
- Alas, alas.
To give the theory of continuous ordination a plausible appearance, our opponents had to create more fog and mystery. All we hear is:
- Sacrament! Priesthood! Ordination!
They deliberately “tabooed” this topic. But the pagan priests behaved in exactly the same way in ancient times, keeping the secret of the calendar, to which they did not allow anyone close, and through this they ruled over society. (The Pontiffs of Rome lost their monopoly after claims formulas tied to the calendar were published. Those who wish can also take an interest in the ancient rite of the Romans called “mancipation” (manus - hand), and how they tried to abuse it)
When this incense smoke cleared from the breath of the Lord, it was discovered that behind all these pompous words there was nothing but ignorance of faith and the desire to rule over people.
“For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned Me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed out for themselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” (Jer.2:13)
We are directly commanded to distance ourselves from people who deviate from the Teachings of Christ, despite their outwardly flashy pious appearance: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Avoid such as these” (2 Timothy 3:5).
The fact that some cannot live without priests with censers and bishops with panagias proves once again that these people do not have a direct, living connection with Jesus. For them, Jesus is not enough for salvation.
And we will hope for living communication with Jesus! Christ gave us real freedom and did not make us dependent on a person, no matter what he was.
“And they are not thirsty in the deserts through which He leads them: He brings out water for them from the rock; cuts the rock, and waters flow out.” (Isa.48:21)
“Behold, God is my salvation: I trust in Him and do not fear; For the Lord is my strength, and my song is the Lord; and He was my salvation.” (Isa.12:2)

release the tortured to freedom

At one time (in 2000) I figured out, primarily for myself, the topic of the ordained priesthood: “If you are wise, you are wise to yourself” (Prov. 9:12)
I wrote this work to help those who love the Truth, so that they would be finally established in salvation. So that in following Jesus no one could tempt them to lead them astray from this path. I do not claim exclusivity in the study of this important topic, but I think that the examples and arguments I have given will confirm some in the truth, and will make others think.
Darkness is afraid of light. Lies are afraid of the truth. Misconception fears honest and unbiased research. Religious darkness dissipates under the rays of the Teachings of Jesus.
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; For He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor, and He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach freedom to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).

Has the Roman Catholic Church maintained apostolic succession?

Διαφύλαξε η Παπική εκκλησία τον ἀποστολικὸ διάδοχο;

The problem of changing the apostolic decree on the form of ordination in the Roman Catholic Church

Convinced of this and penetrating the depths of divine knowledge, we must do in order everything that the Lord commanded to be done at certain times. He commanded that sacrifices and sacred acts should not be performed randomly or without order, but at certain times and hours.

Smch. Clement, Pope of Rome.

From a medieval miniature depicting the ordination of bishops by the Pope

On For a long time after the start of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, the question of the validity and legality of ordinations in the Roman Catholic Church was never raised. In official documents, such as the last document, adopted by the Russian Orthodox Church at the Council of Bishops in 2000. “On the attitude towards heterodoxy.” Regarding the Roman Catholic Church it states the following: “ The dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church has been and must be built in the future taking into account the fundamental fact that it is a Church in which the apostolic succession of ordination is preserved th " That is, recognition of the preservation in the Roman Catholic Church of the apostolic succession of ordinations, at least for the Russian Orthodox Church it becomes not only an “obvious fact”, but already a “fundamental fact”. Although we will not find such statements in the Russian Church in the 19th century. It must be said that such an official fixation of this opinion in important document The Russian Orthodox Church did not appear by chance. Whatever it is R it will seem anonymous, but accepted into the document e The ROC decision on the Roman Catholic Church is a frank voicing and legitimation of the Blamand Document (1993), adopted by the Mixed Theological Commission when it was signed by far from all representatives from the local Orthodox Churches. This document (par. 13) recognizes the preservation of apostolic succession by both churches and prohibits any rebaptism or mutual conversion for the sake of salvation. All these points made in the Balamand Document were intended to create a “new ecclesiology” (par. 30), V in the spirit of which a new generation of clergy should be educated . The fact that these statements and decisions contradict the teachings of the Ancient Church, and therefore the Orthodox Church,we will see this later. We will only mention that such an introduction of ecclesiological innovation into the official document of the Russian Orthodox Church is a gross violation of the provisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, expressed in the same document that “ 4.3. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church conduct dialogues with non-Orthodox people on the basis of fidelity to the apostolic and patristic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, the teaching of the Ecumenical and Local Councils. At the same time, any dogmatic concessions and compromises in faith are excluded. No documents and materials of theological dialogues and negotiations have binding force for the Orthodox Churches until their final approval by the entire Orthodox Plenity" (Dialogue with heterodoxy)

Question about the preservation by the Roman Catholic Church of the apostolic succession of ordinations, as going back directly to the Apostles, in our opinion today requires a thorough scientific and theological revision. We present the reasons for this revision below.

The Church of Christ, possessing the fullness of divine revelation, being a true God-human body, at various historical moments of its earthly existence revealed dogmatic doctrinal truths, bringing them to the consciousness of man as necessary and saving. During the difficult and centuries-long struggle against heretical deviations in the faith, the Church of Christ, through its God-bearing and God-enlightened fathers, defended its identity, dissociating itself from those groups that distorted the divinely revealed Christian teaching, replacing it with philosophical interpretations of an unenlightened mind. The Holy Fathers of the Church quite clearly testified that the concepts of Church and Truth are inseparable. Just as the Church cannot exist without truth, so Truth cannot exist outside the Church.

In the sacred canons, the Church of Christ has determined where, when and under what conditions the apostolic succession of ordinations is preserved.

The sacred canons and writings of the authoritative Holy Fathers of the Church indicate that in the event of a bishop falling into heresy, and with him even the whole organization formerly the Church, or, more accurately, part of the Church, the validity of ordination is lost. St. Basil the Great says this about it: “ For although the beginning of the retreat occurred through a schism(we are talking about the Kafars and their admission into the church under the Great Martyr Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) - note.is our), but those who apostatized from the church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit on them. For the teaching of grace has become poor, because legal succession stopped " Next St. Vasily describes the case of the acceptance of schismatics not through baptism, but through anointing or even in the existing rank (“those who were in their company, we accepted into the episcopal see” - St. Basil mentions his action towards these same schismatics, contrary to church acronym). The last retreat of St. Vasily justifies the rule of “sticking to custom” in relation to schismatics, which presupposes some kind of leniency in order to “ do not discourage delays saved by severity A".

Necessity the priesthood as a grace-filled, divinely established institution for the “construction of the mysteries of God” and the “birth of the children of God” cannot be refuted, since this is an initial establishment, from the moment of the founding of the Church of Christ on the day of Holy Pentecost.

In this case, we do not set ourselves the task of revealing, on the basis of Holy Scripture, the divine establishment of the priesthood, which, according to the teaching of the Apostolic Orthodox Church, has apostolic origin and beginning, and is the most important sign of the Church.

In the mentioned rule of St. Basil the Great talks about how important the power of the bishop, as the successor of the Apostles, is for the Church. The bishop, as the successor of the Apostles in power, inherits this power only from the bishop, legally retained this power. If a bishop loses this power as a result of falling into schism or heresy, then he is not able to transfer this power to others. With the fall into heresy or schism, the bishop loses the inheritance, “of which he became an accomplice through consecration, along with all other Orthodox bishops.”

Doctrine of Apostolic Succession (ἀποστολικὸς διάδοχος, apostolorum successor) as a fundamental principle and sign of the Church and the reality of the priesthood, we find in many ancient writers of the Church: svmch. Clement of Rome, Egesippus, svmch. Irenaeus, Tertullian. Moreover, about the bishop, as e In the heir of the apostles, we find an indication in such an important monument of church writing and history as the Apostolic Decrees (no later than the 3rd century).

However, let us emphasize once again: the Christian consciousness is characterized by an important thought, the immutability of which has always been obvious to everyone - There is no apostolic succession outside the Church . Outside the Church, its saving boundaries, there are schisms and heresies. And therefore, every surviving form of the priesthood is only a graceless form, devoid of saving power. Any bishop who is there is not such by divine right.

The theological dialogue with the heterodox, and essentially heretical, world followed the line of oikonomia, accepting in heterodoxy that which retained the unchanged form of the sacraments. The preservation of apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church was spoken of as something irrefutable and obvious. And as an argument or argument in favor of the expressed view, it was given that the Roman Catholic Church considers the priesthood as a sacrament.

However, the Orthodox side, as if turning a blind eye to the patristic teaching about the unacceptability of the priesthood of heretics, and the Roman Catholic Church is just that - a heresy, accepted the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. Since the 19th century in the Russian Orthodox Church, most likely under the influence of the heterodox world and pressure from officials, the Roman Catholic clergy, in case of conversion to the Orthodox Church, was accepted “in their existing rank.” However, for some reason, the question, which was fundamental in the Ancient Church, was never raised about the preservation of the formal side of the sacrament of ordination.

In the Ancient Church, the ordination of bishops and priests had its own legalized forms. And the first condition for the ordination of a bishop was the mandatory participation of three or two bishops in the ordination of bishops. This rule is recorded in writing in 1 rule of the Holy Apostles:

Bishops may be appointed by two or three bishops

Episcopal consecration, performed by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II with the metropolitans and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church

This rule is of great importance, since in episcopal consecration, in the manner and form of the performance of episcopal ordination Conciliarity is externally revealed as the principle of the structure and existence of the Church. In addition, as Bishop Nikodim (Milos) emphasizes, “This should be so because all bishops are equal in their spiritual power, just as the Apostles, whose successors the bishops are, were equal in power.”

The Apostolic Decree also points to the conciliar ordination of bishops:

And we command a bishop to be ordained from three or at least from two bishops; We do not allow you to be appointed as one bishop, for the testimony of two or three is more certain.

There we also find descriptions of the episcopal ordination itself:

I speak first, Peter. To ordain as a bishop, as we all decided together in the previous one, one who is blameless in everything, chosen by the people as the best. When it is named and approved, then the people, having gathered on the Lord's day (i.e. on Sunday) with the presbytery and bishops present, let Tagreement. Let the elder ask the presbytery and the people whether this is the one whom they ask to be the leader... When silence falls, one of the first bishops, naturally with the other two, standing near the altar, while the other bishops and presbyters pray secretly, and the deacons hold the revelation of the divine Gospels over the head of the one being ordained, let him say to God: “This Master, Lord God Almighty... (the text of the ordination prayer follows). .. At the end of this prayer, the other priests say: “Amen,” and with them all the people. After the prayer, let one of the bishops give the Sacrifice into the hands of the ordained person...”

That is, the procedure for episcopal installation consisted of the election of a bishop by the people, three times asking the eldest of the bishops about the correctness of the choice of this candidate for bishop, the confession of faith by the elected bishop, the ordination itself, which is performed by three bishops with the laying of the ordained Gospel on the head. All this took place in the evening. According to the same Apostolic Decrees, in the morning the ordained bishop delivered a sermon after the ordination, and then participated in the Divine Liturgy.

According to the rules of the Orthodox Church, which maintain the custom of the Ancient Church, the ordination of a bishop is performed during the Divine Liturgy by two or more bishops, and the prayer over the ordained person is read by the senior bishop, metropolitan or patriarch. At the same time, only one bishop, priest and deacon can be consecrated during the Divine Liturgy.

St. Simeon Metropolitan of Thessalonica in his famous work “Conversation about the holy rites and sacraments of the church” gives interesting and detailed information about the ordination of the Patriarch of Constantinople from non-bishops. That is, he describes the very ordination of the High Hierarch of the Great Church according to ancient custom, committed by mu Bishop of Irakli. That this ordination is performed by a council of bishops, he writes the following: “Then the one being ordained kneels and places his face and head on the divine table; and the one who ordains him lays his hand on her, and the others also touch (her).” In addition, St. Simeon mentions that the presiding bishop makes the sign of the cross three times over the person being ordained.

At the consecration of the diocesan bishop St. Simeon of Thessalonica calls the bishops participating in the ordination “co-ordaining with the first bishop” (ὡς συγχειροτονούντων τῷ πρῴτῳ ).