О церковной иерархии

In the 1st letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul develops the idea that the Church is the body of Christ, consisting of different members (1 Cor. 12:12-27), and, although all members are of equal value as members of one body, they have differences among themselves in their place in the body, therefore the gifts are different, with the unity of the Spirit, and the ministries are different. Here the general principle of the hierarchical church structure of society is established, as arising from the highest expediency of the structure of the spiritual organism and the will of God. The hierarchical principle, which does not deny, but realizes universal equality with differences between natural and spiritual, is characteristic of any society that has a spiritual basis and purpose, and even more so it is characteristic of church society. The Old Testament church was hierarchical - in different directions, and the beginning of the New Testament hierarchy was laid by the Lord himself, who called the 12 apostles and made them the mysteries of His teaching and witnesses of His life. Each of the apostles was personally called by the Lord to apostolic service and through this received the title of apostle, but at the same time, the entire twelve apostles constituted some closed unity, an apostolic council, which after the fall of Judas was replenished to 12 by a new election (Acts 1:15–26). Within the 12, the Lord sometimes made distinctions, choosing three or four (Peter, James, John, and sometimes Andrew) to be present on the Mount of Transfiguration, or to the place of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Of these, He personally singled out two: the Apostle Peter, who is, as it were, the primate of the apostolic council, for he answers on behalf of all the apostles in the confession on the way to Caesarea of ​​Galilee and in general is, as it were, the elder of the apostles, and the “beloved disciple”, who - on the basis of his personal closeness - has the greatest access to the Lord at the Last Supper and is adopted by Him on the cross to the Virgin Mary 5. Of course, this selection does not eliminate their equality of the apostles, as does the Catholic doctrine regarding the Apostle Peter in the doctrine of primacy, but this introduces the beginning of organization within the relationships of the apostolic face, a hierarchical structure even in the apostolic hierarchy, which prefigures the hierarchical relationships of the episcopate that is equal in itself (and this feature can be seen in the selection of “James, Cephas and John, revered as pillars” ( Gal.2:9) by the Apostle Paul). The structure of the apostolic face, with all the equality of its members, can be likened to the ecumenical episcopate, in which, along with ordinary bishops, there are also patriarchs, and among the latter there are several primaries or one first - of course, by honor, and not by rank. The Lord not only marked the apostles with His election, but also especially sanctified them with His high priestly prayer (John 17) and by sending them the Holy Spirit through a breath, giving them the power to forgive sins (John 20:22–23). Their deliberate dedication was the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire, which “rested one on each of them” (Acts 2:3). In the person of the apostles, the Lord himself laid the foundation of the church hierarchy, and opposition to it is opposition to the will of the Lord. The apostles, through their dedication, of course, did not become equal to the Lord or those like Him, vicars of Christ or vice-Christs, neither in the person of the Apostle Peter alone, as Catholic theology teaches, nor in the person of the 12-Rits. The Lord himself lives invisibly in the Church as its head and, after His ascension into heaven, remains with us “always, now and ever and unto ages of ages”; and the powers of the apostolic first hierarchy are not at all to be the vicariate of Christ, but to impart the gifts necessary for the life of the Church. In other words, the apostolic hierarchy was established by the power of Christ and the will of Christ, but it is not - neither in the person of an individual first hierarch (pope), nor in its council - the substitute of Christ on earth. The hierarchs have the power to be mediators, servants of Christ, who have received authority from Him and received the Holy Spirit for their service. This ministry consists, first of all, of preaching “eyewitnesses of the Word”, “witnesses” (Acts 1:2) of the Incarnation, bringing down the Holy Spirit on those newly baptized and installing officials, no matter what they are called. In a word, the apostles received the power to organize church life, and at the same time they were charismatics, combining the gifts of the sacrament, prophecy and teaching. Along with the 12, there were also apostles, but of a different, so to speak, lower rank: this includes the 70 apostles already named in the Gospel, as well as the “apostles” who are mentioned. in the Apostolic Epistles, except for the 12-ritsa. In the first place is, of course, the Apostle Paul himself, whose highest apostolic dignity, equal to 12, is testified by himself and recognized by other apostles, but “this also includes those who generally saw the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15: 5-8) (Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy, Apollos, Andronicus and Junius). However, this apostolate (which in the Didache, a monument of the end of the 1st century, already has the meaning of predominantly preachers moving from place to place) differs significantly from the chief apostleship, from the 12, which contains the fullness of gifts, and most importantly, endowed with its powers and sent for “witness” by Christ himself. However, this 12 apostles, called by the Lord, died out by the end of the 1st century, and the last of the apostles, who after all still remained in the east, was the “elder” John. Does the power of apostolic ministry in the Church cease with this death of the apostles? In a certain sense, yes, it stops, having fulfilled its calling, laying the foundation of the New Testament church and preaching the Gospel “to the ends of the universe.” The apostleship in the fullness of its gifts does not and cannot have its continuation, and the Roman idea that the Apostle Peter continues to exist in the person of the pope is an arbitrary dogmatic fiction that cannot be confirmed by anything. The bishop of Rome is no more a successor to the apostleship than all other bishops, that is, in the precise sense he is not a successor at all. Apostolic gifts and powers are personal, and the Lord gave them by personal election. Moreover, apostleship is a combination of various charismatic gifts, which, as such - not in fact, but by virtue of establishment - we do not have in any of the hierarchical powers that originate from apostolic succession. And yet the apostleship did not leave the world without a continuation of its ministry. The apostles conveyed what they could convey and what could be received. In addition to personal apostolic dignity, which is indescribable, they conveyed those gifts that are either inherent to Christians personally, or to the Church as a society. They conveyed to all believers the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit, which they brought together through the laying on of hands, and thereby made them “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), but they determined the teaching of these gifts through the hierarchy they established, the power of which lies in direct and continuous apostolic succession. After the apostles, the communication of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Church became the authority of the hierarchy, that is, the episcopate with presbyters and deacons. Already from the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century, in the works of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, bishop. Lyons, Tertullian, and later, by the 3rd century, bishop. Cyprian, the same general idea is expressed that the Church gathers around the bishop, and the bishop exists by succession of apostolic ordination, which is a divine institution. In some cases, examples of the continuity of this apostolic succession are indicated (the Sees of Rome, Ephesus, Jerusalem, etc.). Historically, it is impossible to indicate where, when and how the hierarchy was established by the apostles in the form in which it now exists, i.e. three degrees of bishops, presbyters and deacons. The first decades of the 1st century, on the contrary, remain completely silent about this. Or when we find references to hierarchical titles, it is clear that they either mean something different than now, or they lack that clarity of distinction and relationship between the three degrees of the priesthood, which is now inherent to us (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5–7; 1 Tim. 3:2, 5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1–5). In any case, if we find mention of bishops and presbyters among the apostles, it is in such a form that it cannot serve as direct evidence of the existence of degrees of priesthood in our sense. To prove for the first century the existence of a three-degree hierarchy, in our current sense, is hardly possible, and hardly necessary. The picture we have in 1 Cor. 12, 1 Cor. 14 rather corresponds to the state of a life not yet formed, abounding in inspiration and characterized by the general development of spiritual gifts, and, however, charismatics find natural leadership and guidance in the apostles. There can also be no doubt that the apostles appointed (consecrated) leaders of communities, who were called bishops, presbyters, simply primates (προϊστάμευοι), sometimes angels of churches (Apocalypse), not to mention the diaconal service. What is indisputable is only the general presence of a hierarchy around the apostles, and under the apostles, and it cannot be allowed that its emergence was the fruit of only the “natural” development of the community organization, and was not at the same time the fulfillment of the direct will of the Lord. But the same thing has to be thought about the fact that by the beginning of the 2nd century both in Asia Minor (the epistles of Bishop Ignatius) and in Rome (the epistle of Pope Clement, the works of St. Irenaeus) it turns out that there is a “monarchical” episcopate, that is, the leadership of local churches by bishops, as the only indisputable charismatics, and the presbyterium and diaconate gather around them. The dogmatic expression of this order is still given in an unstable and confusing way, sometimes in a one-sided exaggeration (as in St. Ignatius the God-Bearer), but both the fact itself and the consciousness of this fact are already evident. This transition from a disordered, universal charismaticism to a closed clergy led by the episcopate remains historically elusive and poses a mystery to historians. In a religious sense, it is also sometimes understood in Protestantism as a kind of spiritual catastrophe or general fall from grace, as a result of which amorphous ecstatic communities everywhere become infected with “institutionalism”, adopt forms of state organization and “ecclesiastical law” arises (Prof. Som.). Here the insensibility of the unity of the Church and church tradition, characteristic of Protestantism, is manifested, due to which both the imaginary mystery and the imaginary difficulty arise. As a result of this insensitivity, it is concluded that there is an internal gap between the 1st and 2nd centuries. And this opinion leads to religious absurdity, namely, as if the existence of the Church in a genuine form, free from hierarchical organization, could only last for only a few decades, after which the Church suddenly became covered with hierarchical leprosy and ceased to be itself for a millennium and a half, until, finally, just as suddenly, the Church was freed from this leprosy and was restored in its true form in anti-hierarchical Protestantism. There cannot be a more occasionalistic and simply absurd idea of ​​the history of the Church, and only the reaction of the struggle against Catholic imperialism can explain such a strange aberration of historical vision. Hierarchy arises with natural necessity in the Church - as the episcopate with the presbyterium and diaconate dependent on it - and nothing can be clearer than the necessity of its emergence. The grace of the Holy Spirit communicated to the Church is not the subjective inspiration of this or that person, who may or may not exist, but is an objective fact of the life of the Church, is always the continuously and inalienably active force of the universal Pentecost. Its fiery tongues, which descended on the apostles, remain in peace and are always taught successively from the apostles who received them. The apostolic face was a hierarchical companion and a means for the transmission of the Zion languages, these grace-filled gifts of the Church, and for this purpose it is necessary and irreducible after the death of the apostles their succession in the charismatics, but in a certain, indisputable, and non-random way, that is, through the correct succession of the hierarchy, which, if expressed in terms of sacramental theology, would not act opere operantis (although not without it), but opere operato. For such a medium there was already a ready-made and divinely established form in the Old Testament priesthood, which, according to the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was a prototype of the New Testament. However, the latter is by no means a simple continuation of the Old Testament priesthood, but arises again from the Great Hierarch - not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek. This high priest is the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrifices to the Father not the blood of sheep, but Himself, “the blood of the New Testament,” Himself the sacrifice and the priest, “the offerer and the offered.” And He is the head and beginning of the New Testament priesthood. He ordained His apostles even before the Ascension, breathing into them the Holy Spirit, with the words: “receive the Holy Spirit,” and this ordination received its full force only after the Ascension, with the descent of the Holy Spirit. The presence of Christ himself on earth naturally made the existence of a hierarchy other than Him unnecessary and impossible, but its emergence apart from Him and without His command was equally impossible. The apostles, as first hierarchs, transferred these hierarchical powers, in so far as they were not of a personal, but of a general nature, to their successors. This succession, obviously due to the apostolic establishment, which although we cannot directly state, cannot but recognize, after some uncertainty and hesitation, by the 2nd century, it had already taken shape according to the type of the Old Testament priesthood, although already different from it. For the Church, which lives by the unity of tradition, this establishment of the apostolic succession of the hierarchy is axiomatically obvious. Tradition remains united and has the same force, but manifests itself in certain forms or institutions already from the first century, or from the second, or from the fifth, or from the 20th century, unless this new contains not a negation, but a disclosure of what is already laid down in the tradition and in any case does not contradict it. And on the contrary, the destruction or rejection of what is available in the general church tradition is a rupture and a spiritual catastrophe that impoverishes and distorts church life, depriving it of its inherent fullness. This is the significance of the abolition of the hierarchy of apostolic succession in Protestantism. Through this, it deprived the Protestant world of those gifts of Pentecost, which are taught in church sacraments and sacred rites through the hierarchy, which received its powers through the mediation of the apostles and their successors. Through this, the Protestant world is likened to those Christians who, although they were baptized “in the Name of Jesus,” did not receive the Holy Spirit sent down through the hands of the apostles (Acts 19:5–6). Of course, “God does not give the spirit by measure,” and those who are baptized with the baptism of Christ in the Name of the Holy Trinity already have within themselves a guarantee of the Holy Spirit, for He “breathes where He will,” and one cannot completely exclude the direct and immediate action of the Holy Spirit on a person, as if by the power of a new or, rather, continuing Pentecost. However, one can also add to this that “no one knows when the Spirit comes and when He goes.” Christ, by His will, established that there are in the Church certain, known ways of receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit (as in the described case of the sending of the Holy Spirit through the hands of the apostles), and this way are the church sacraments performed by the priesthood of the apostolic succession. The fact of this succession and continuity of ordinations, which cannot be disputed, at least since the beginning of the 2nd century, in itself already sufficiently testifies to its divine establishment. And it equally cannot be disputed either for the Eastern or for the Western Church, and the continuity of hierarchical succession very early (from the 2nd century) begins to be cited as proof of the authenticity of the episcopate (St. Irenaeus), in the fight against the Illuminati, Montanists and Gnostics, who put forward the power of arbitrary prophecy against the regular priesthood. This continuity of apostolic succession is an objective fact that cannot be replaced or supplemented by anything where it is missing or even only damaged. Of course, the power of this ordination cannot be understood in a magical sense. And the priesthood has power only in unity with the Church and, moreover, in the Church, and not above the Church and not in isolation from it, where it loses its reality. Nevertheless, the objectivity of this fact, which cannot be replaced by any personal spiritual giftedness, cannot be filled in case of absence otherwise than through legal ordination. The denial of successive hierarchy in Protestantism is based on the idea of ​​a universal priesthood and communal election. But the first idea in itself is not at all directly related to the issue under consideration: the fact of the universal grace of Christians and, in this sense, the universal priesthood does not at all contradict the existence of a deliberate priesthood or hierarchy. It is not only compatible with the latter, but even constitutes a condition for its existence. For, of course, hierarchy cannot arise and exist in a society without grace (on the contrary, in it it loses its power, as in cases of entire communities falling away into heresy or schism). But there are different gifts, and different ministries, and how there can be different degrees of priesthood within. hierarchy, just as there can and should be a difference between the hierarchy and the people even in the presence of a universal priesthood. It is also wrong to contrast the election of the community with ordination, as something that replaces it or excludes it. Quite the contrary, the election of the community as a precondition is entirely compatible with the recognition of the decisive importance of ordination. Human election or desire, alone, cannot compensate for the divine act of ordination. And the elected official of the community from this election does not become a hierarch, does not acquire hierarchical power, does not become a charismatic. Hierarchy is the only charismatic ministry in the Church that has a lasting significance and, with its presence, makes up for the absence of extreme charismaticism, although it does not exclude it. This is the general meaning of the historical fact of replacing the disordered charismatism of the primal church in the apostolic age with the successive, regular charismatism of the apostolic tradition. Hierarchy in the Church must be understood precisely as a natural, regular charismatism, with a specific purpose, in particular for the mysterious communication of gifts of grace, the continuity of grace-filled life. As a result of this settlement, associated with the external fact of continuity of the hierarchy, the latter, without losing its charisma, becomes both an institution and the life of the Church, to the extent that institutionalism (“Church law”) is introduced. However, this institutionalism has a very special nature, which must be precisely defined. What is hierarchy in the Christian church? First of all and most significantly, it is the power to perform secret actions, and to that extent, in itself, it is the bearer of this mysterious superhuman and supernatural power. According to the testimony of early writing (for example, from St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, from the apostolic men), the bishop is precisely the celebrant of the Eucharist, and only that Eucharist is valid, which is performed by the Bishop. The sacrament of the breaking of bread immediately took a leading place in Christian life and became an organizing force in the Church, in particular for the hierarchy. After Pentecost, believers remain “in the teaching of the Apostle, in the fellowship and breaking of bread and in prayer” (Acts 2:42), and the central importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Church is evidenced in various written monuments of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Naturally, the first celebrants of the Eucharist are the apostles, as well as the charismatics, the forthcoming (προϊστάμευοι), and the prophets of the “Didache”, appointed by them, but in the post-apostolic age, the celebration of the sacrament of Body and Blood becomes the work of bishops, and gradually other sacraments that have come into use in the Church are added here. So, the hierarchy in the form of bishops and the clergy dependent on them arises, first of all, as bearers of the power of sacramental action, due to sacramental charisma. The latter, forming the basis of the mysterious, grace-filled life of the Church, was supposed to receive permanent carriers for itself. In modern theology, this purpose of the hierarchy is defined as a derivative of the high priestly ministry of Christ: Christ is the Bishop who heads the heavenly hierarchies and the entire earthly priesthood. But the power of secret action, as concentrated in the personality of the hierarchs, naturally and inevitably becomes the general organizing principle of church power and, ultimately, the basis of “church law.” The bishop, as the bearer of the fullness of charismatic power, naturally and inevitably becomes the focus towards which the entire life of the church community gravitates, for it depends on him in the most essential respect. From this the logic of church thought of the first centuries from St. Ignatius the God-Bearer to St. Cyprian, that episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopa. From this common charismatic foundation in the history of the Church, further canon law develops, defining the rights of a bishop in the Church, and then the relationship of various bishops. A bishop, according to established church rules (Central Rights, First Ecumenical Sob., First Apostolic Rights), is ordained either by all the bishops of the region, or by at least two or three. As the Church spreads, the question naturally arises about the relationship between bishops of different churches within the same country, or what is the same, within the national church. A distinction appears between bishops on the basis of their canonical powers, a difference arises in the authority of individual sees and in relation to canonical powers, which in the Roman Church are concentrated entirely in papal primacy. For centuries, ecumenical and local councils have regulated these relationships, now reflecting in their complexity this centuries-old difference. It, however, does not change the basic fact that, being canonically different due to historical and factual relationships, bishops are charismatically completely equal, and between them there is no superbishop episcopus episcoporum, as the Roman Church honors the pope. In order to evaluate the essence of the nature of ecclesiastical, i.e., episcopal, power, one must always keep in mind its features, which stem from the nature of ecclesiastical communion. Although it is often said about “monarchical” episcopacy, and this state definition sometimes finds justification in the personal lust for power of individual bishops, we must remember that church power has a different nature than state power, as spiritual power: it is greater and higher than any secular power, as it extends to the soul of a person, but due to this spiritual character it is, first of all, service, according to the word of the Lord: “kings rule over nations, and those who control them are called benefactors. But you are not so: but whoever is the greatest among you must be like the younger, and the ruler like the one who serves” (Luke 22:26). In the exercise of his power, the bishop acts with the church, but not over the church, which is the spiritual organ of love: agreement with the Church and unity with it constitute the very condition of the bishop’s existence. This unity cannot be expressed in terms of state constitutional law, such as, for example, the rule of people or the limited power of a constitutional monarch, due to the inapplicability of legal categories here. (Church law, if there is a right, is in any case sui generis). Episcopal power may be more absolute than the power of an absolute monarch, but it can also be completely dissolved in unity with the people. The guiding norm here is the example of the Jerusalem church and its relationship to the apostles as first bishops. Despite the fullness of their truly super-episcopal power (since it, including the fullness of the episcopate, also has personal apostolic powers), the apostles resolve all significant issues with the people: the Apostle Peter appeals to the entire Jerusalem brotherhood ( äυδρες ασελφοί Acts 1:15–16 ) to elect the 12th apostle instead of Judas. “And they appointed two and prayed and said... and cast lots for them” (Acts 1:23, 24, 26) - at all moments of this election the apostles are in unity with the people. The same thing applies to the election of seven deacons: the apostles convene “a multitude of disciples,” to whom they turn about the election of seven deacons. “And this proposal was pleasing to the whole assembly... and they elected... they were appointed...”; the apostles ordained them - “having prayed, they laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:3-6). The community (“circumcision”) turned to the Apostle Peter with a reproach about the acceptance of the uncircumcised at the house of Cornelius, and he reassured it with his story about a special revelation that had happened to him. The “Church of Jerusalem” sends Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). Finally, the Apostolic Council, at which Paul and Barnabas were received in Jerusalem by the “Church, apostles and elders” and announced to them about their preaching among the pagans, then “apostles and elders” (άπόσολοι καί οί πρεβύτεροι), here in in the general sense of the elders, gathered in a council (Acts 15:6). Then the apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, decided, choosing two men from among themselves, to send them to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas, writing and handing over to them the following: “apostles and elders and brethren... we have heard... Having gathered together, they unanimously decided...” “It pleased the Holy Spirit and us not to lay a burden on you” (Acts 15:25, 28). The image of the first ecumenical apostolic council gives the norm of episcopal authority in the church people and with the church people. And if historically we know that ecumenical and many local councils usually consisted primarily of bishops, then we should not see in this a new canonical norm that abolishes the apostolic council and gives power to the episcopal class, as such, over the church people and without the people. This fact must be understood not so much as a manifestation of the bishop’s power over the church, but as the representation through bishops of the churches they head, with which they are in unity. And at the same time, it is more a matter of fact and, so to speak, technical convenience, than of principle, that the “presbyters and brethren” who were at the Jerusalem Council are not actually present at the councils. However, they were actually present, for example, at the Moscow All-Russian Council of 1917–18, which consisted of diocesan, i.e. having unity with the flock, bishops, priests and laity, and in this composition more accurately reflected the canonical norm of the Jerusalem Council than even ecumenical councils. The difficulty of arriving at the latter - according to the means of communication of that time - sufficiently explains their one-sided hierarchical composition, unless, however, one assumes that the church people there were represented by the tsar or his officials. Of course, in Roman Catholicism, the presence of only bishops at the council is already the norm, because there the hierarchy is understood to a much greater extent as power over the church, headed by the monarch-pope. We do not know of a single fact in the history of apostolic times when the apostles acted as sole authority over the church and without the church. On the contrary, if we have a manifestation of personal apostolic power - in the working of miracles, then it is not connected with their advantages as bearers of church authority, but belongs to them as the gift of apostolic ministry. Therefore, even now the church people have their share of participation in the election of bishops, in which the spiritual unity of the clergy and laity is expressed: the people even take part in the ordination, although performed by a bishop, for at the appropriate moment they proclaim their äειος. “Let no one be appointed,” writes Pope Leo the Great, “against the will and desire of the people, lest the people, having experienced coercion, begin to hate and despise the unwanted bishop” (Epist, ad Anast. 84). In order to correctly understand the hierarchical principle in the Church, it is necessary to keep in mind not only the inherent advantages of the hierarchy, but also the equally inalienable advantages of the laity. The laity is by no means merely a passive object of government, with the sole responsibility of obedience to the hierarchy, a charismatically empty place that is completely filled by the hierarchy. The laity can also be considered as a kind of sacred rank, investing its bearers with the dignity of the Christian title: “the people of God, the royal priesthood.” Although this idea is exaggerated in Protestantism to the point of complete denial of hierarchy, it cannot and should not be diminished in its significance. As Christians who have received baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit in confirmation (which can also be considered as a kind of ordination to the Christian title), the laity are charismatics, although in a limited sense, in particular, even in the field of sacred and sacramental activities. They can, if necessary, perform baptism through threefold immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity, which is valid 6. On this basis, the Church considers baptism valid even in societies that have lost the priesthood and reject hierarchies. But besides this, after all, every private prayer, which constitutes the right and duty of every Christian, is also a sacred act in which he is a priest in the church of his soul, as well as for his brothers in the event that the prayer is not individual, but collective. At least in this sense the public worship of societies that have abolished the priesthood can be regarded. Although this is not a secret action, it is still a general prayer. Finally, even in the celebration of sacraments performed only by the priesthood, in particular even the Eucharist, the laity have their share of participation, which is externally expressed in their responses to the prayers and proclamations of the priest, but internally it is so significant that the priest, strictly speaking, should not perform the sacraments alone without the people. In other words, he performs them together with the people, and the laity are co-performers of the sacraments in their place. In the spiritual organism of the Church, everything is accomplished in the unity of love, and no one organ can exist independently of the other. Nonne et laci sacerdotes sumus - to a certain extent, these words of Tertullian can be applied here. It is impossible to draw the conclusion from this that, on the basis of universal Christian charismaticism, there is no special charismaticism that belongs only to the hierarchy. On the contrary, it is precisely because of this charisma that there is a hierarchy that has its own degrees, and there are boundaries that are impassable for the laity. This is the celebration of the sacraments and, above all, the divine Eucharist. And although in the New Testament we cannot find a direct establishment of our present three-degree priesthood exactly, that is, in the form in which it was established since ancient times, we see here, too, everywhere the beginning of hierarchism, first of all in the apostolate, then in the episcopacy and presbytery and in the deaconry. On the other hand, nowhere will we find such a disorderly charisma, due to which everyone would perform the “breaking of bread” and other sacraments. On the contrary, this clearly constitutes an advantage either for the apostles themselves or, in any case, for deliberately appointed persons (and the example of the Corinthian community, in 1 Cor., represents precisely a negative authority). The idea of ​​hierarchical equality, tantamount to the denial of the principle of hierarchy, as the beginning of the Old Testament, is not expressed anywhere in the Word of God and is completely absent from church tradition since the 1st-2nd centuries. But the latter is, in any case, a better witness to the apostolic teaching, transmitting the commandments of Christ, than the problematic reconstructions of modern historians who have become detached from living tradition. The hierarchy, which traces its origin directly from Christ, the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, through apostolic succession, is Christ himself, working secretly in His Church. She is loved by Him and full of love for Him, she is the joy and consolation of the Church from the Comforter of the Holy Spirit, who is descended upon the ordained, she is the focus of church life, established by God himself, and through her God himself acts on earth. To deprive oneself of the hierarchy means to impoverish, to devastate church life, which means, in a certain sense, to expel the apostles and Himself who sent them from the Church, and there cannot be a greater ecclesiastical disaster and greater error than that, as a result of which, at the beginning of the 16th century, entire church societies, covering entire nations, deprived themselves of the priesthood and to this day remain without the sacraments, without the grace-filled gifts given in them. Of course, the Spirit breathes where it wants, and we cannot say that they are completely deprived of the Holy Spirit, by which they are reborn at baptism. But this is the greatest church sorrow of our days, and let our love for our Protestant brothers and our prayer be that they again seek the hierarchy of apostolic succession, and it would be returned to them. On the Protestant side, a contrast is sometimes put forward between prophetism and institutionalism. I think that the hierarchical principle is opposite to the prophetic gift, which, thanks to its elimination in the name of the universal priesthood, is degenerated into a pseudo-prophetic excitement. The Church has already defeated and overthrown the latter once in Montanism and continues to overthrow it in all its countless repetitions and varieties. Or it leads to the graceless ritualism of chosen but not ordained pastors who actually take the place of the divinely appointed hierarchy. They concentrate in themselves the general “prophecy” and, thereby, leave the flock without it. And isn’t this institutionalism, only not hierarchical, but bureaucratic, where hierarchy is replaced by bureaucracy? The priesthood does not absorb the charisma that belongs to the Christian people, in so far as it is their lot on the basis of Christian life. But for him, too, the acceptance of grace-filled gifts in the sacraments through the priesthood is essential. The Lord sends these gifts in His own ways, known to Him alone, but this does not contradict the presence of divinely established ways of teaching them in the sacraments. After the first century of Christianity, prophecy as a special gift disappears (and, of course, it is not restored through one claim to it), but the place of prophets is taken by spirit-bearing men, whom the Church glorifies as saints after death, and venerates during life. But even in those who are not awarded canonization - in certain areas of activity or at certain times of life - the power of Christian inspiration and creativity is manifested, which corresponds to prophecy. The latter, one way or another, always lives in the Church not in spite of its hierarchism, but in alliance with it, even relying on it. And this personal and not hierarchical charisma differs from the succession-hierarchical one to such an extent that one is by no means presupposed by the other, although it can be combined with it. (So ​​the Old Testament knows priests who were also prophets: Samuel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, etc.). On the other hand, not all “hierarchs” and “priests” are personally holy and spirit-bearing: having the power to bestow the gifts of the Holy Spirit on others, they themselves do not accept His power 7 . So, there is no opposition between hierarchism and prophetism in the Church, but a direct connection and conditionality. The ministry of the priesthood as a charismatic medium cannot be merely mechanical or magical, but it also presupposes the spiritual participation of the one who is this living mediator. The priest, mediating between God and man in the sacrament, bringing down the Holy Spirit in him, makes himself the instrument of this bringing down, he strips himself, dies sacrificially, is a victim and priest, “offering and being offered,” in the image of the High Priest of Christ. But this sacrificial dying is self-denying love, and hierarchical service is the service of love. The power of hierarchy is love. The connection between the hierarchy and the laity is not domination, but mutual love, on the part of the hierarchy it is protective and paternal, on the part of the flock it is grateful and filial. “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep,” and “the sheep know him and obey his voice” (John 10). Shepherding (which is also preserved in the Protestant pastorate), i.e., counseling, is directly related to the sacrament, and teaching also follows from it. The hierarchical structure of the Church, which has its basis in the very essence of grace-filled life and church love, in accordance with newly emerging needs, unfolds into a whole system of canonical legislation, which has its basis in the direct command of the Lord who chose the apostles - in jure divino, but developing into a system in church history, in jure ecclesiastico. Currently, this system is determined by a set of decrees contained in the so-called apostolic canons and ecumenical and local councils, and in detail - in the decrees of local churches. The powers of the hierarchy concern: a) priesthood, b) shepherding, c) teaching. Sacred rites and sacramental rites constitute the deliberate and primary service of the priesthood and, above all, the celebration of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Approaching the altar is entering the sphere of fire, which burns the uninitiated, as Ozu once did when he touched the Ark of the Covenant. The priest, in order to enter the sanctuary, must put on sacred clothes, in order to be thereby, as it were, removed from the world. The service of a priest in the sacrament is the service of an angel standing before the throne of God. And just as sacred objects, for example, vessels, can no longer be taken for ordinary use, so the performers of the sacrament through dedication are distinguished from among the people. They, although they retain their human weaknesses and sins, receive a special equal-angelic nature; priests become holy to God, for through them sanctification is accomplished. This holiness is not their personal holiness; on the contrary, priests can be, and often are, more sinful than the laity. This is the holiness of the Church, which through them sanctifies its children with the Holy Spirit, this is the holiness of Christ, in whom they are clothed, not only on an equal basis with all Christians in baptism, but also purely in dedication. Only this dedication allows one to overcome the fear and trepidation that grips a person when approaching a shrine - without it this approach itself is impossible. When will our Protestant brothers finally comprehend this? The full power of the sacrament belongs only to the bishop. The presbyter receives this power only to a limited extent upon his ordination. Moreover, he also carries out this in canonical unity with the bishop, in which charismatic fullness is concentrated; the deacon receives the power only to approach the shrine and serve during the sacrament. This distribution of charismatic power establishes the relationship of the clergy, who, although in canonical dependence on the bishop, nevertheless, within the limits of his powers, secretly acts independently. In connection with the secret action, which is associated with the influence on the souls of believers, there is also the pastoral ministry of the hierarchy, as a ministry of protective love. Shepherds receive a special gift of compassionate love - they make other people's sorrows and downfalls as if they were their own. They care about souls, influencing them both with measures of protest and forgiveness, and with measures of severity and punitive discipline. On this basis, in the history of the Church, jure ecclesiastico, canonical practice is established in the history of the Church regarding the application of church penalties and, in connection with this, church judgment, equally applied to both shepherds and the flock, for the shepherds themselves, in turn, are flocked through their co-shepherds (and only the Pope of Rome among Catholics turns out to be a shepherd, shepherding everyone, but not being shepherded by anyone on earth, although, however, even he has his own confessor). Shepherding is associated with a special responsibility for the flock, which does not exist for the laity, who pay the shepherds for this with special love and reverence. And thus, the flock naturally gathers around the shepherds, and the Church is naturally composed of communities organized hierarchically. Hierarchy is like a skeleton in the church body. Of course, if a manifestation of spirit and power arises in the Church in the person of some spirit-bearing man, the entire church community, both shepherds and flocks, rushes to this prophetic ministry, without distinction of their hierarchical position: the personal authority of St. Seraphim of Sarov or Fr. John of Kronstadt, or the Optina elders (Father Ambrose and others) was greater than all the hierarchical personal authorities. However, he never invaded the area of ​​purely hierarchical powers, did not violate or destroy them. This once again confirms the complete compatibility of prophetism and hierarchism. The pastoral ministry also includes church teaching. It is so naturally connected with the priesthood that it would be strange if it were otherwise. Not only reading, but also preaching the Word of God, direct teaching, is part of the priesthood (and among Protestants, even the main part in it). And not only is there an actual inseparability of priestly service and preaching, but also charismatically, the gift of the occult also invests its bearer with the power of teaching. The sermon in the church, from the church pulpit, belongs, as a rule, to the performer of the sacrament and can only be entrusted by him to another person, but usually also belonging to the clergy. The word of the shepherd, regardless of even its greater or lesser significance, receives its weight from the place of utterance, being part of the divine service. And in this church teaching the shepherd cannot be replaced or supplanted. (This right is protected by the 64th rule of the VI Ecumenical Council.) In the primal church, “teaching” (1 Cor. 12:28) was the lot of special persons who had this gift and moved from community to community, as “apostles” or “evangelists” (missionaries), but this, firstly, does not exclude the church teaching of pastors in the church, and secondly, over time, it apparently merged with the general shepherding. But teaching, of course, is not limited to church preaching, but extends beyond the boundaries of the church. From this arises the right and duty of the hierarchy to preserve the teaching transmitted by the Church intact, protecting it from distortion and proclaiming to the believers the norm of church teaching, and observance of this norm is protected by appropriate measures of church authority, up to and including cutting off. The bishop, within the boundaries of his diocese, monitors the purity of the taught and proclaimed teaching, the council of bishops of the local church or, in cases of more general significance, the council of bishops of the universal church establishes church truth that has been obscured or not manifested in consciousness. In connection with the recognition of not only church-church preaching, but also the general teaching behind the hierarchy, a general question arises about the nature of this teaching of the hierarchy, both in relation to its exclusivity and belonging to it, and infallibility. In the Church there is a shepherd and a flock, therefore, there are two parts: teaching and teaching. The authority of church teaching cannot be diminished with impunity. However, its presence does not at all mean that the shepherd has all the power of teaching, and the laity are completely deprived of it, having only one duty - passive acceptance of teaching. Such an understanding, which sharply divides church society into two parts, active and passive, does not correspond to Christianity, and it is necessary, together with Protestantism, to contrast it with the idea of ​​a universal priesthood and the anointing of the people of God. To him, to this people, to all believers, to all Christian people, and not only to the hierarchy (as is usually understood by excessive hierarchists), the words of the Lord are addressed: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20), or: “go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creatures" (Mark 16:15). To the extent that the secret work, which was expressed, in particular, in the bringing down of the gifts of the Holy Spirit through ordination, was the property of the apostles (and after them, the hierarchy established by them), so preaching the Gospel was considered the work of every believer, who is called by the Lord himself to confess (and through that, preach) Him before people; “Everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess before My Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32–33); “And the Son of Man will confess before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8), “but whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:33) (Luke 12:9 “before the angels of God”). And we, indeed, see that the preaching of Christ from the beginning was carried out not only by the apostles, but also by believers in general, moreover, not only by men, but also by women, some of whom the Church blesses as equal to the apostles precisely for preaching the Gospel (like St. Nina, the enlightener of Georgia, then St. Equal to the Apostles Mary Magdalene, St. First Martyr Thekla, etc.). In the Acts of the Apostles, the first to be named (as preachers of the Gospel) are St. Archdeacon First Martyr Stephen “full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5) and Deacon Philip, who, having come to the city of Samaria, “preached Christ to them” (Acts 8:5). (The diaconate in the current hierarchy does not give the right to independent church preaching and, in this respect, comes close to the laity.) At the same time, “when they believed Philip preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12). Here, baptism is performed without the participation of the apostles, that is, the hierarchy (with regard to the independent performance of the sacrament, the diaconate is still no different from the laity), in other words, it is performed by the laity, which corresponds to the current practice, according to which, in the absence of a priest, the laity can baptize, and, conversely, the apostleship itself was not necessarily connected with the performance of baptism, at least according to the testimony of the apostle. Paul: “The Lord did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). On the contrary, the descent of the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the secret action, could not be accomplished by Philip, but required the arrival of the apostles Peter and John (Acts 8:14–17). Next comes the story of how Philip admonished and then baptized the eunuch of the queen of Candace (Acts 8:26-38), and the Holy Spirit also descended on him, however, in addition to (the laying on of Philip’s hands); and after this Philip, “preached the gospel to all the cities” (Acts 8:40). The Acts of the Apostles further tells how “those who were scattered from the persecution that followed Stephen went as far as Phenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to no one except the Jews. And there were some of them Cypriots and Cyrenians, who, having come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the good news of the Lord” (Acts 11: 19-20). Already on the basis of these examples it is clear that even during his stay on earth, St. apostles, the preaching of Christianity was carried out by believers, regardless of whether they were bearers of church rank. But this same fact runs resolutely throughout church history to the present day. The Christian mission is not only not associated with hierarchical advantages, but is the duty and heritage of every Christian who says about himself: “I believe and confess,” and thereby preaches. The exploits of the martyrs who professed their faith are also the most powerful sermon. Further, if we turn to preaching not only among unbelievers, but also among Christians, then here too we will find numerous evidence in the Word of God that the laity (however, this word is not known at all by the Word of God, which simply calls Christians: believers, disciples, brethren, etc.) take part in teaching, so that there is even a special gift of teaching. The Apostle James makes the following appeal to all believers: “Brothers! If any of you deviates from the truth, and someone converts him, let him know that he who converts a sinner from his false path will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20), - here the entire brethren is assigned the responsibility of teaching, even related to counseling (cf. also 1 Thess. 5:11; Heb. 3:13; 1 Pet. 4: 10-11; Gal.6:1 f.). It is known that in the Corinthian community (as, apparently, in the primacy of the Church in general), the laity taught not only in private, but also in church meetings (1 Cor. 14:26; Col. 3:16), although at the end of the apostolic time, due to the strong spread of false teachings, the responsibility of church teaching was concentrated on the primates of the Church (1 Tim. 1:7; 3:2; 5:17), and at the end of the 2nd century (Irenaeus) this becomes the dominant practice, and at the same time the class of independent church teachers, who still occupy such a high place in the Didache (early 1st century), disappears. The deprivation of the laity of the right of church preaching is so established in the Church that it is later legitimized by the fathers of the 6th century. Council (Rule 64, which prohibits the laity from public (διδάσκειν), i.e. church preaching), although it is also permissible, as we know, with the permission and blessing of the church authorities. But if the laity do not have ecclesiastical authority, i.e. liturgical, preaching, as well as active participation in the performance of sacred ceremonies, during which the word is preached, then this does not deprive them of the right of para-church, extra-liturgical, and even more so extra-church preaching. And in any case, in addition to liturgical preaching, certain restrictions on the teaching of the laity were introduced for disciplinary and practical reasons, but not at all charismatic, not because of its incompatibility with the title of layman. In the Church there is no place for dumbness, voicelessness and blind obedience, for the apostle says: “stand in the freedom that Christ has given us, and do not be subject to the yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). But if this is the case even in relation to the church magisterium, then all the more so the right of theology and scientific research into issues of Christianity cannot be taken away from the laity, and in our days there is, by the force of things, magisterium. His freedom can be introduced within certain boundaries, enforced by the hierarchy, but it cannot and should not be taken away. Theological thought is the self-consciousness of the Church, it is its breathing, which cannot be stopped. In addition to the general anointing of Christians by the Spirit of God, we must not forget that there may also be a deliberate election, which in ancient times was called prophetic ministry, and now, if it is not called so, due to a certain timidity, as well as the difficulty of recognizing it and the controversy that follows from this in some cases, but, of course, does not become scarce in the Church. (Now the expression “prophets” and “prophecy” have become more of a literary epithet than an expression of the religious conviction that prophecy has not and should not dry out in the Church.) The Apostle expressly forbids the disparagement of prophecy and the quenching of the spirit (1 Thess. 5:19-20). But the spirit breathes where it wants, and the prophetic gift of the spirit is not connected with hierarchical ministry (although it can be connected with it). Of course, discerning spirits and recognizing true prophecy is a most difficult task for the Church, in which there is always the threat of a possible error (which is why the apostle informs: “test everything, hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). However, he also warns against the quenching of the spirit, which is a consequence of the formal prohibition for the laity of free theology. The latter cannot be unfree, remaining sincere: freedom here means not free-thinking, in which the teaching of church tradition is simply ignored and, in general, self-will reigns, but sincere, personal inspiration and adaptation to what is crystallized in the teaching of the church, the desire to realize church experience and the experience of personal thought and feeling. This is so in essence, for church tradition is at the same time a personal experience that is realized in individuals. And this area of ​​free ecclesiastical inspiration, as well as scientific study, is primarily the area of ​​“prophecy” in the modern sense of the word. And it, of course, cannot be limited only by the hierarchy (although in the priesthood it also has its own special sources of knowledge and inspiration, as well as special experience inaccessible to the laity). This area belongs to the entire Christian world, and the word of the prophet Moses remains valid about it: “If only all were prophets among the people of God” (Num. 11:29). But this also means that everyone should teach, edifying one another, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Thess. 5:11). Thus, the division of the Church into teaching and teaching does not make such sense that it would abolish the universal teaching of Christians according to the spiritual age of each. It must be understood in the sense of only the eternal advantages belonging to the hierarchy as such, firstly, in church preaching, and secondly, in the special authority of its ecclesiastical magisterium and supervision over the general magisterium of the church. How is this latter determined? The answer to this question can only be given in connection with the doctrine of the organ of church infallibility. See my work: Peter and John, the two chief apostles. In vain, by the orders of individual popes in Catholicism, the validity of baptism, performed in the established form, extends to non-Christians; through this, the perfective power is associated only with the form to which magical power is imparted. The power of baptism by the Church is given only to Christians, and precisely as charismatics, even if only in a lay rank. In the Old Testament there are some features of the combination of priesthood and prophecy, as a proclamation of the future, so to speak, ex opero operato: this is the sacred questioning of the Urim and Thummim, which finds echoes in the Gospel of John: “Caiaphas did not say this on his own, but, being the high priest that year, he predicted that Jesus would die for the people” (John 11:51).