Succession of the Spirit and ordination. Apostolic succession and priesthood in evangelical churches

"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. The influence of the Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession on Christianity as a whole.

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

Introduction

Real research 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.

The works of famous Orthodox theologians of past centuries and today were used as a theoretical basis for studying the doctrine of apostolic succession. 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 general review 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 it in His ministry hierarchical structure, which 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 resist your enemies and torturers in the flesh, but do not even think about the words of your justification before them, since the Lord right time fill your mouth with words;

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. The intervention of the state 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 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 of the one born into the world " 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 under all this disgrace.

No less interesting is the view of historians on the origins of Orthodox Christianity. ancient Rus'. The key figure in the baptism of ancient Rus' is undoubtedly the Kiev prince 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 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 human self-interest and shamelessness, which opens the way to desecration 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 suggests itself that the Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession at one time was 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 of Christian doctrine, to a greater or lesser extent, 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 of the 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?

- About this important property The Church of Christ, as apostolate, or apostolicity, is spoken not only by the canons of the Church. 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: “How 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

A principle arising from the concept of the clergy of the Christian church as the divinely appointed and historically continuous guardian of the teaching, organization and worship of Christianity since apostolic times (i.e. the first century of church life). This… … Collier's Encyclopedia

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION- a divinely established way of preserving and transmitting hierarchical service in the Church from the holy apostles through the sacrament of the Priesthood. It is actualized in the succession of episcopal consecration (ordination), but is not limited to it. A.p.... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

Church history Eusebius of Caesarea is the earliest of the surviving works describing the history of the Christian Church in chronological order. The significance of this work, both due to the information contained in it and thanks to its followers ... Wikipedia

BOUNDARIES OF THE CHURCH- a term used in Christ. theology to determine membership in the one Church of Christ for both individuals and Christians. communities (confessions, denominations, communities). The issue of G.C. is one of the most pressing in modern times, including... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

APOSTLESHIP- [apostolicity], one of the 4 essential properties of the Church listed in the Nicene Creed of Constantinople: “I believe... in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” (πιστεύω... εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν κ αὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν). Term... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

The True Orthodox Church (TOC) is the self-name of a number of non-canonical jurisdictions that consider themselves Orthodox, oppose themselves to the canonical Orthodox churches (universal Orthodoxy) and are not in Eucharistic communion with them... Wikipedia

- (CPC) the self-name of a number of non-canonical jurisdictions that consider themselves Orthodox, oppose themselves to the canonical Orthodox churches (universal Orthodoxy) and are not in Eucharistic communion with them. Contents 1 History ... ... Wikipedia

- (CPC) the self-name of a number of non-canonical jurisdictions that consider themselves Orthodox, oppose themselves to the canonical Orthodox churches (universal Orthodoxy) and are not in Eucharistic communion with them. Contents 1 History ... ... Wikipedia

Protestantism Reformation Doctrines of Protestantism Pre-Reformation movements Waldensians · Lollards · Hussites Reformed churches Anglicanism · Anabaptism · ... Wikipedia

Books

• A Brief History of the Bespopovtsy Split, Team of Authors. Church schism became one of the most significant phenomena in the history of Russian spiritual culture of the 17th century. The second main movement of the Old Believers, non-priesthood, originated in the north of Russia in...

Apostolic succession

Irenaeus was prompted to write his longest book, “Against Heresies,” by the successes of Valentinus’ followers. In Gaul they were led by a certain Marcos, and the movement was called “Marcosians”. Some from the community of Irenaeus himself also went over to him. The loss prompted the bishop to write five books under the general title, which exposed the beliefs of Valentine and “other Gnostics”; The work remains an invaluable source of information to this day. He called the ideology of these movements “false knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20) and explained their appearance as a deviation from the original truth accepted by the apostles from Jesus Christ Himself.

Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides and all the sects of Gnostics who considered themselves Christians declared that they preached the apostolic doctrine in the form in which Jesus handed it to His disciples. Marcion supposedly rediscovered the truth given to the Apostle Paul after the Twelve had distorted it. Valentin allegedly studied with Thevda, a student of Paul. Basilides said that his mentor was Glaucius, the personal scribe of the Apostle Peter. The Apocrypha of John states that John received a special revelation from the great Varvelon. All this was presented as a higher, more spiritual truth, secret knowledge inaccessible to ordinary Christians, the lot of the elect. The theological teaching of Irenaeus gained strength precisely in the fight against such statements (“Against Heresies,” 3.3–4).

Irenaeus writes that if the apostles had such secret knowledge, they would have passed it on to those whom they trusted more than others and placed at the head of the churches - the bishops. For this reason, Irenaeus considered it important that for all bishops their succession from the apostles could be established. He was not the first to come up with the idea of ​​succession, since lists of this nature appear already in the early antignostic Egesippius (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.2–3). However, Irenaeus developed this theme and cited the Roman church and Polycarp of Smyrna as an example. 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, secondly, to check which the faith was preached in it by the successors of the apostles - the bishops - and the successors of these bishops.

Next, Irenaeus writes about the special position of the Roman church as the representative of all others. Its language becomes extremely complex, and this gives many reasons for controversy. “It is necessary that all churches and believers everywhere should agree with this Church because of its supreme authority, for in it the apostolic tradition was preserved by the efforts of those who live in other lands” (“Against Heresies”, 3.3.1). It is unlikely that Irenaeus insists here on the right of Rome to dictate its dogmas to the rest of Christianity. Rather, he means that the one apostolic faith exists “everywhere,” in all lands. The oldest church, tracing its history from the supreme apostles and having constant communication with other churches, is a reliable repository for the original truth.

After this, Irenaeus gives a list of Roman successors to apostolic authority, which became the basis for all such lists. Its authenticity is beyond doubt, with the exception of the first five names (Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evariste, Alexander). In a letter to Victor of Rome (190), Irenaeus begins a similar list with Sixtus, without mentioning previous bishops. Sixtus could have been the first sole bishop: the idea of ​​Ignatius finally won, who testified his fidelity to the Church by martyrdom. To fulfill his own requirement for continuity, Irenaeus supplemented the list by borrowing previous names from one of the earlier authors (perhaps from Egesippius). Since “Sixtus” means “sixth,” he must have had five predecessors. (It must be said that Irenaeus is mistaken here. The Church appeared in Rome earlier than these two apostles arrived in the capital of the empire).

In the last letter from prison (2 Tim. 4:21), the last male name mentioned by Paul is Lin. On the same page of the New Testament one can read “The bishop must be blameless"(Tit. 1:7), in Greek anakletos, hence the name Anacletus. Clement, who confirmed his position as bishop by writing a famous epistle, has been identified with Clement of Phil. 4:3. It is unknown where the fourth and fifth names came from, but this method of calculating apostolic successors is not very reliable. There can hardly be any talk of dishonesty. If Irenaeus really calculated the names of the Roman bishops in this way, then this belongs to the category of special inspiration and is quite consistent with the proof “why there should be four and only four Gospels” (“Against Heresies”, 3.11.8), which does not take historical data into account at all .

Irenaeus had a special connection with the apostolic era. He personally heard the sermons of Polycarp of Smyrna, who not only was an example of orthodoxy and martyrdom, but also accompanied John, Philip and other apostles on their travels. 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 added idea of ​​the succession of bishops form a single theory (“Against Heresies,” 3.3.4).

Note that Irenaeus speaks only about the transmission of the apostolic teaching through successors (bishops) and the dissemination of this teaching. Perhaps he also had in mind the transfer of apostolic grace as a special gift from the apostles to the bishops, but there are no direct indications of this. Rather, this is a more recent idea.