Hierarchy and sacraments

This essay was compiled for the collection The ministry and sacraments, prepared by a commission of theologians for the second conference “Faith and Order” (Lausanne). I. Hierarchy in the Apostolic Age The question of the emergence of a three-tier hierarchy as the basis of church organization is one of the most difficult in modern church historical science and, in all likelihood, given the sources given, is doomed to remain the domain of hypothetical guesses and constructions. However, we can consider the most probable general result that suggests itself as a result of historical observations: during the first century, the apostolic and post-apostolic church did not know the three-degree hierarchy in the present sense. 1 The latter can be stated from the beginning of the 2nd century (from the first epistle of Clement, the epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer and after them) and even even, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, at least in places (Διδακή) we observe a more complex charismatic-hierarchical organization. However, already from the middle of the 2nd century, a hierarchical organization was established with a more or less obvious “monarchical” episcopate at its head. We are observing, as it were, two eras: firstly, the apostolic and post-apostolic age, when the gifts of grace, later associated with the hierarchical charism, were abundantly poured out, as it were, over the hierarchical boundaries, and, along with the saints themselves. apostles, various charismatics also acted (1 Cor. 12), and, secondly, an era of regulated charismaticism through a hierarchy similar to the Old Testament priesthood, starting from the 2nd century. One may not exaggerate (like Zom) the entire contrast of both eras, but one cannot help but see all their differences. At the same time - what is most important here - the very transition from one era to another remains elusive. The initial absence of a three-degree hierarchy has the force of a historical fact, which the attempts of Orthodox-Catholic apologetics remain in vain to weaken, and we do not know the exact establishment of the hierarchy. We do not know of a direct “apostolic succession” in the establishment of this hierarchy, which would be designated in an externally defined way. Although, based on the examples of apostolic ordination in Acts, we can postulate the continuity of this ordination from the apostles to the first hierarchs, we are powerless to state it. Pragmatically tendentious evidence of the continuity of apostolic succession for the Roman Church in Tertullian and St. Irenaeus (as well as for the Asia Minor Church by St. Polycarp), of course, do not have sufficient evidentiary power, and they do not even try to show a continuous line of apostolic ordinations for all churches and for all cases of ordinations. The idea of ​​direct and continuous hierarchical succession from the apostles is inspired primarily by the Catholic doctrine of the primacy of Peter, who continues his presence in the Church in the person of the Roman high priests, as well as the doctrine of the direct establishment of all seven sacraments by Christ himself, and this definition of the Council of Trent 2 was also adopted by the dogmatic doctrine 3 of Orthodoxy. Such a doctrine, of course, leaves no room for that factual hiatus, which, in the name of scientific truth, church history states during the transition from the pre-hierarchical to the hierarchical era. History in this case poses a question for dogmatic interpretation, namely, how one should understand the hierarchical principle in its meaning in the church, as well as the general principle of apostolic succession, which currently establishes the justification for the hierarchy. The Catholic doctrine about the primacy of Peter, allegedly established by Christ himself, and about the succession of his apostleship in the popes, has at least consistency, although it is bought at the price of the dogmatic myth about the continued presence of the apostle. Peter in the Roman popes and in the Roman See. However, even from a Catholic point of view, there is no longer any basis to talk about the personal succession of the other apostles, and this is not said, because Roman dogmatics is not interested in this. Orthodox dogma would be more interested in this, which, however, has not yet done, and would hardly be able to do, an experiment of such proof. We sometimes encounter such word usage in a general form as applied to the entire episcopate, to which in such cases the fullness of apostolic grace is attributed. But this is a simple misunderstanding, for Orthodox dogmatics is completely unaware of the idea of ​​​​continuing the apostolic title in their successors. The dignity and service of St. the apostles, as those who knew Christ in the flesh and were called by Himself, is not transferable, and the episcopate does not at all have the fullness of the gifts of the apostleship and in this sense is not an apostolic ministry. The latter is much higher than bishopric, which is included in the apostolate as one of its private gifts, and should not even be compared with it. It can be considered that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which gave the apostles the power of remission of sins at the appearance of the Risen Christ (John 20:22-3), was for them, as it were, an episcopal ordination, and it received power for itself at Pentecost. However, the very calling to the apostleship made by Christ was not at all connected with any private gift and was not confined to it alone. And the fact that St. The apostles on Pentecost received the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire, there was much more than just the episcopacy - namely, all their prophetic and charismatic gifts. The Church is called apostolic not in the sense of “apostolic succession” of episcopal ordination, or at least not in this sense alone, but in relation to the entire fullness of the apostolic tradition. And apostolic succession in this sense is characteristic of the entire church, and not just the hierarchy, just as the gifts of Pentecost in the form of tongues of fire were given not only to the apostolic hierarchy, but also to the entire church people. The Catholic and Catholic interpretation of Pentecost wants to give it the meaning that only the first hierarchs - the apostles - were gathered in the Upper Room of Zion, and only through them these gifts are further transmitted to the rest of the Church members. But such a tendentious interpretation contradicts the facts, for according to the book of Acts. at the descent of the Holy Spirit, not only the apostles were present, but also Mary, the Mother of God, and many others (cf. Acts 1:14 and 2:1,4). But even if this had not happened, one cannot think that the apostles at Pentecost represented only a hierarchy, a “teaching and ruling church,” in the absence of the laity. It would be more correct to assume in this case that the 12 of the apostles actually represented the entire body of the church with all its members, i.e. and the hierarchy and the world, although not differentiated, are inseparable. There is a complete analogy here with Matt. 28, 19–20, where the command to baptize and teach all languages, directly addressed to the Apostles, actually means the whole church. (This is confirmed, in particular, by the fact that baptism can be performed by the laity, and it also presupposes teaching). It is indisputable that in the fullness of the gifts bestowed upon the Church, which was represented in the person of the apostles, there were also hierarchical powers, but they were not the only ones. If the Old Testament hierarchy received its beginning from the fullness of the gifts of the prophet and seer of God Moses, then the apostles laid the foundation for the Christian hierarchy not only as first hierarchs, but from the entire fullness of the apostolate, which, as such, is not transmitted to anyone, and therefore it is inappropriate to talk about apostolic grace among hierarchs alone. The apostles founded churches in places and pre-established their structure. However, this cannot be understood legally, in the sense that they themselves created the entire system of church institutions and determined the church organization. The theanthropic nature of the church presupposes not only divine inspiration and guidance, but also responsive human creativity and self-determination. Therefore, the church is subject to historical development. And in accordance with this, in the Chief Apostolic Church we observe initially a certain amorphousness and formlessness. (This gave Zom the reason to see in the latter the internal norm of the ecclesiastical church, in relation to which any institutionalism, “church law,” is a fall from grace). This amorphousness was filled and strengthened by the personal service of the apostles and their constant visits to various communities (later “charismatics” also join here). But, of course, it could not satisfy all the practical needs of local communities (or ecclesias), which therefore had their own bodies: “bishops”, “deacons”, “presbyters”, etc. At the same time, in the apostolic writing we do not find instructions that the Eucharist, the breaking of bread, which begins to take place immediately after Pentecost (Acts 2:42, 46), had for themselves deliberate performers, in addition to the apostles themselves, who, of course, were not enough to satisfy the liturgical needs in different places. This expressive silence about the existence of a deliberate hierarchy for the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist rather indicates that a certain hierarchical structure of sacramental life did not yet exist here. the idea of ​​a universal priesthood, although not in certain specific forms, was practically guiding for this system, the remnants or experience of which we have in the Didache, the Teaching of the 12 Apostles, where the Eucharist is celebrated by evangelists, prophets, and bishops or presbyters. II. The emergence of hierarchy in the post-apostolic age This is the direct evidence of history, which cannot be weakened by dogmatic postulates about the continuous existence of a hierarchy for the performance of sacraments since ancient times. On the contrary, it is more probable that hierarchy arises in history, as if spontaneously and, of course, in accordance with the spirit of the apostolic tradition and in no way contrary to it, although there was a time when it did not exist. 4 This fact of the historical emergence of the hierarchy currently introduces a whole dogmatic confusion, and dogmatic passions and tendentiousness are introduced into the judgment about the historical fact itself. For some, this fact contains the dogmatic elimination of a successive hierarchy in favor of an elective universal priesthood; for others, the very recognition of this historical fact sees a malicious heresy - an undermining of the hierarchical principle in the life of the church, which they want to support with a historical myth. Both points of view are equally incorrect in their straightforwardness, but the facts undoubtedly require a dogmatic interpretation. There are sacraments that are directly established in the Gospel and therefore are called Gospel sacraments; about them, those peculiar questions that are raised regarding the “non-evangelical” sacraments do not arise. History testifies that some sacraments, although they correspond to the spirit of the tradition of the Apostolic Church and even exist in it as if in grain, however, do not appear in life immediately, but in historical development, which in no way diminishes their significance. Such is the consecration of oil, marriage, in a certain sense even repentance, and, obviously, this also includes the priesthood. In Protestantism, a dogmatic principle has been established, a kind of Old Belief, according to which only that which is marked with the stamp of primitiveness (Ur-Christenthum), so to speak, pre-historicity, has a dogmatic right to exist. This premise contains a tacit denial of church history, which is viewed only as the Fall. Why should only earlier and less developed institutions be valid in comparison with more developed and later ones? Why are these latter deprived of the authority of sacred tradition attributed exclusively to the former? This question was never answered; it was considered self-evident that early Christianity was the norm of all Christianity. But at the same time, it remains an irrefutable fact of church tradition that after an interval of only a few decades existing between the apostolic and post-apostolic centuries, we already observe in the second century an episcopate and a three-member hierarchy. In general, a hierarchical principle is established: St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian and others already express it as indisputable and self-evident. In this desire for fidelity only to the original tradition of the church, in its pre-hierarchical state, although it is affirmed in the name of freedom, or “profitism,” in reality, rather, Old Testament nomism is manifested in its legalistic completeness. Meanwhile, organically developing and gradually coming to its fullness, tradition in fidelity to the apostolic principles gave birth to a hierarchy. With this generation, the ancient apostolic principle of the laying on of hands clearly appears as an image of the communication of grace from St. apostles in the apostolic church. This power was transferred by the apostles to their successors, although we cannot accurately establish all the particular cases of this transfer (the conciliar letters of Timothy and Titus). This laying on of hands initially has a varied and uncertain meaning. Only the later tradition of the Church connects with certain of his images certain - and, moreover, different - gifts from the fullness of the treasury of the Church. In this sense, we can say that the Church itself establishes the hierarchy in its present form. Usually, the establishments of iure divino and iure ecclesiastico, divine and unconditional and relatively historical, are distinguished and contrasted in Catholic, and after it in Orthodox theology, and the three-degree hierarchy (headed by the pope) is, of course, one of the first. However, neither one nor the other category fully captures the nature of the hierarchical establishment. The hierarchical principle, succession through ordination, is a divine institution, it exists iure divino, but in its concrete historical existence it arises in the history of the Church, iure ecclesiastico. And in general this will, of course, be a modo divino-humano, a divine-human action of the Church. In the primitive church, the fullness of the gifts of Pentecost was poured out abundantly, as during the lifetime of the apostles themselves, for some time, perhaps. two or three decades, and beyond. We have no direct instructions that the apostles, when founding new church communities, themselves ordained certain hierarchs for them. Rather, the possibility of establishing a hierarchy was left, which, however, was carried out by the church itself. She, the church, from the fullness of her abiding Pentecost, gave birth to a hierarchy, according to the divine spirit living in her, and according to the general principle of the succession of grace. If in the Old Testament church we have the establishment of a hierarchy, at the command of God, through the prophet Moses, then here too the hierarchy arises through the prophetic, spirit-bearing activity of the church. The Church is a priori a hierarchy, and not the hierarchy is a priori the Church. The idea of ​​hierarchy as a direct and continuous succession of ordination from the apostles is characteristic of the later century - Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. It is too brightly colored by a pragmatic character and cannot be considered sufficient evidence with historical force. If, without any doubt, all the fullness and power of episcopacy, which was given at Pentecost to the entire Church, was concentrated in the apostleship, this does not mean that the apostles were actually bishops of certain churches. On the contrary, they did not stay in certain places, and we have no information about this (except for clearly legendary ones) (just as Titus and Timothy, ordained by the Apostle Paul, were not bishops in the strict sense of the word). The idea of ​​the bishopric of the apostles necessarily follows only from the Catholic understanding of hierarchical succession (primarily from the Apostle Peter), and in general hierarchy as power over the church (a special application of the ex opere operato principle). It is assumed that the external fact of succession establishes, as given, a hierarchy that rules over the church as an ecclesiastical oligarchy. This idea, although widespread among some Orthodox theologians, does not correspond to the Orthodox understanding of the church as the organic unity of all members in the body, although with their distinction - the unity of all in freedom, and love, in conciliarity. According to this understanding, all gifts, in particular hierarchical ones, are given to the entire church in its conciliarity, and therefore, by virtue of this, the church was competent to allocate different organs for different functions and establish a hierarchy. For this, it was not at all necessary that direct succession of ordinations from the apostles, which, although postulated, cannot be proven. The entire doctrine of hierarchy must be illuminated in the spirit of the principle of conciliarity, according to which the hierarchy exists in the church and for the church, but not above the church; it is its organic member, although vested with special powers. The Roman doctrine influenced the theological thinking of all confessions in this matter to such an extent that no small effort is needed to overcome this influence. The basic principle here should be that hierarchical powers belong to the entire church, and bishops arose in the Church by its power, and were not given as if from the outside, directly from the Apostles. Episcopacy, but not bishops, is included in the gifts of Pentecost, thanks to which, out of the total number of ordinations, separate bishoprics arose in places, in accordance with the needs of the church. It was completely natural that the latter arose through ordination from bishops, which received the name “apostolic succession.” The meaning of this name in the usual understanding is that within the visible historical field there is no break in the hierarchical succession of ordinations. However, the idea of ​​“apostolic succession” also has another, broader and dogmatically very important meaning in the ancient church. Here we mean not only the succession of hierarchical ordination, but also belonging to a given church community founded by the apostles or arose from them, that is, the succession of conciliarity. This important historical fact, noted by Turner in his excellent essay on “apostolic succession,” establishes in the worldview of the ancient church the principle of conciliarity, as the inseparability of an organic connection, the unity of community life. 5 Episcopal grace is given to the community, and not to the individual, who realizes it only in connection with the community. This means that it is not just the laying on of hands by the bishop, but the entire community, with its consent and participation, that establishes the hierarchy with its succession. The organic connection of communities with each other is taken beyond the boundaries of a private local church, which is by no means closed in its conciliarity, but is in an organic connection with the entire body of the church. This connection is outwardly expressed by the fact that episcopal ordination presupposes the participation of two or three bishops belonging to other churches as their representatives, i.e., it is included in the life of the church-wide whole (Cyprian in solidum). This is not the idea of ​​church democracy, but of church-conciliar organicity. The hierarchy with its hierarchical succession is given to the entire church, which all has participation in ordination and not only through elections and consent, 6 but through prayerful participation in the sacrament of ordination itself. The rite of ordination is structured in such a way that the consent of the people, expressed by ἄξιος, is an essential moment in the sacrament itself. In the formula for ordination, the believing people are also called to pray for the descent of the grace of the Holy Spirit, in other words, ordination itself is accomplished not by ordination alone, as a magical or mechanical act, but by the prayer of the church at ordination. 7 The hierarchs themselves, apart from the church community and in spite of it, cannot perform an effective ordination, so to speak, ex opere operato. For this reason, for the effectiveness of ordination, it is required that the person being ordained be confined to a specific church community. III. Universal Priesthood and Hierarchy So, the hierarchy, just like the sacrament of the priesthood, although it has a historical origin in the life of the church, it is precisely in this origin from the church that the seal of Pentecost lies on it. Therefore, we can say about it that it exists iure divino, although at the same time it exists iure ecclesiastico. There is no contradiction in this combination of both principles, which are usually opposed. Initially, the hierarchical principle, having a divine origin, was carried out spontaneously and indefinitely, in the order of enthusiastic inspiration, and then receives the form of a canonical establishment. This canonical design ideologically and practically receives a one-sided and harsh expression, not alien to Western “legalism”; not only in the Western Church, but also in the Eastern Church. The main corrective against this legalistic one-sidedness is the principle of conciliarity or the organic nature of the church as the body of Christ. Strictly speaking, the entire church is hierarchical, like the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and hierarchical service is not the basis, but the function of this hierarchy. Zom's radical thought, directed (like all Protestantism) polemically against Roman legalism, in its fundamental denial of canon law as law, contains the truth that the hierarchy is not legalistic, but charismatic, and not placed above the church, but conciliar and organic. In this conciliar organicity the iron of power melts, and submission means conviction. The organic nature of the hierarchy in the church is related to what constitutes its main and most important function. It does not consist in commanding and punishing (which is already a secondary and derivative function), but, first of all and most importantly, to perform the sacraments, and, most importantly, the Divine Eucharist. Hierarchy is primarily a Eucharistic institution. And, since the Lord himself established the sacrament of the Eucharist, the hierarchy is included in this establishment as one of the conditions. The celebration of the Eucharist begins in the church immediately after Pentecost (Acts 2), obviously with the direct participation of the apostles; later (according to Didache) it is carried out not only by the apostles, but also by prophets and evangelists - a transitional era, and by the beginning of the 2nd century, in unknown ways, obviously, by some instinct of church wisdom, its direct leadership is concentrated in the hands of the hierarchy, and all determinations of hierarchical degrees are made in relation to the Eucharist. The bishop, like the presbyter, are the celebrants of the Eucharist, and the bishop, who ordains the presbyters, naturally takes first place, while the deacon is the one who serves in the celebration of the Eucharist. It is remarkable that in the very first written monuments, where the hierarchical principle is established, it is invariably justified by the celebration of the Eucharist. So we have in Clement 8 (in relation to elders) and in St. Ignatius 9 in relation to bishops and the entire clergy. And already on this basis, as a superstructure, for practical reasons, one or another ideological justification for episcopal power and significance in the church is established. But in this Eucharistic meaning of the hierarchy, first of all and most of all, the conciliarity of its nature is revealed. The Eucharist is λειτουργία, a common cause, a common service. According to the rite of the Orthodox liturgy, in which the prayers of the celebrant and those praying are united, intertwined and alternating, the sacrament is performed conciliarly, by all the people together with the clergyman, and the power to perform the transformation is exercised not by a magical act ex opere operato in addition to the worshipers and without their participation, generally without relation to the church, but as a liturgy, a common cause (In the same way, all other sacraments are conciliarly performed, in particular consecration, as stated above). In a negative form, this idea could be expressed as follows: a priest or bishop alone, without the people and without any relation to the people, fundamentally cannot and should not celebrate the Eucharist, 10 and those present at the liturgy, even in the smallest number of lay people, are representatives of the entire church people. So, it should be considered that the origin of the hierarchy is sacramental, and it was born from the Eucharist. And from this center, the performance of other sacraments further arose and developed, nevertheless having a center in the liturgy or dedicated to it: first of all, the sacrament of the priesthood itself, gave its confirmation, baptism, which initially could and can still be performed by the laity, 11 marriage, originally confined to the liturgy, then (by divine institution) repentance, and over time, consecration of oil. But, what must be kept in mind, all these sacraments, like the Eucharist, are also performed conciliarly, they are the actions of the church through the hierarchy, or rather, with its necessary participation, but not the hierarchy as such, apart from the church or above the church. So, sacramentalism is the true basis of the hierarchy; here its necessity was felt for the first time, and only then this sacramental center, once arose, became noticeable in its action and in all church life. Here, in the conciliar understanding of hierarchy, we encounter the biblical idea of ​​a universal priesthood, which was put forward by the Reformation against Catholic clericalism. Unfortunately, both sides, who faced irreconcilable contradictions in the 16th century, knew only the Western formulation of this issue and were unfamiliar with Orthodoxy, which, in its idea of ​​conciliarity as applied to the hierarchical principle, alone was capable of reconciling them. And first of all, we must begin with the fact that the principle of the universal royal priesthood, known to the Old Testament and proclaimed by the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 2:9), must be recognized and recognized in Orthodoxy in all its strength. All Christians are priests in the church of their own soul, which is also the temple of the Holy Spirit, and all of them are laymen, participating together with the performers of the sacrament in the divine liturgy, as well as other sacraments. It should be noted in this regard that the state of the laity in the church is not a complete absence of the royal priesthood, but only a special state or degree of it, since all Christians are invested with the sacred office of the laity. The laity exists only in the church and for the church; outside it there is no hierarchy or laity: Muslims or pagans are not laity to the same extent that they are not priests. The sacrament that corresponds to the ordination of the laity is confirmation, after which the baptized is admitted to all other sacraments. It is worthy of attention that this elevation to the rank of laity is an episcopal sacrament, like ordination: in the Western Church, as a rule, it is accomplished through the laying on of episcopal hands, but in the Eastern Church, although the direct celebrant is the priest, the myrrh used in the sacrament necessarily has the consecration of even several bishops. In this sense, confirmation is the sacrament of the universal priesthood. So, this principle, so dear - and in all fairness - to Protestantism, finds for itself corresponding recognition and confirmation - at least in principle - in Orthodoxy: in the celebration of the Eucharist the whole church participates in the fullness of its royal priesthood, which, however, is not amorphous, but organized, like different members of a single body, stands before the altar. But let it be allowed to point out to our Protestant brothers that the principle of the universal priesthood - sacerdotium - in its conciliar, organic application does not exclude, but necessarily includes hierarchical bodies acting not in isolation, but in organic unity with the church. Hierarchy can be understood as the organization of the universal priesthood. The principle of the universal priesthood organically connects the hierarchy with the body of the church, but it does not mean that all members of the church are practically called to exercise this priesthood, for in the body they are different members, not all of them are hands, mouths, etc. If church organization and differentiation of organs is recognized as necessary in Protestantism, then this practically only confirms the entire fallacy of the straightforward application of the principle of a universal priesthood. Hierarchy is precisely the practical application of this principle, with the power of the priesthood being delegated and concentrated in certain bodies. The same thing is recognized, only with insufficient consistency, in the Protestant distinction between sacerdotium and ministerium. Although the hierarchical meaning of the ministerium is denied here, nevertheless, in fact, sacerdotium is the only thing that is realized in it, which in all members of the church, in addition to the ministri, is practically abolished for lack of application, or is expressed only in the right to choose. It turns out to be a paradox that in Protestantism, the universal priesthood is exercised through the personal priesthood, which is doctrinally denied. In other words, it turns out that due to the lack of a conciliar understanding of the hierarchy, the universal priesthood in reality remains inactive except in the pastor. 12 Consequently, the principle of the universal priesthood in Protestantism is only proclaimed, but is not actually recognized, since sacramental ordination is denied. The point here is not at all about rejecting or belittling the universal priesthood, but on the contrary, to realize it and turn it from a formal declaration into reality, which is what takes place with Sacramental ordination. The latter, as we have seen, is truly the sacrament of the entire church, the implementation of the universal priesthood, and with the restoration of the sacramental priesthood in Protestantism, we would not be talking about denial, but precisely about eliminating the inconsistency in the application of the principle of the Universal priesthood of the church - not only of this time, but of all times of its existence in its unity. Belonging to this unity of church life is expressed by the principle of the so-called. apostolic succession, currently expressed by the episcopal laying on of hands, with the general consent and prayer of the community. Bishops, ordaining in unity with the church, successively express the function of the universal priesthood. The laying on of hands is not a magical act, deus ex machina, the sacramental power of one bishop over the church, but in it the church priesthood itself realizes itself, in its continuity (once again - Cyprian in solidum) - the organized life of the priesthood. This organized life corresponds much more consistently to the idea of ​​a universal priesthood than an elective ministerium, devoid of sacramental meaning. The idea of ​​the latter is an extreme expression of ecclesiastical jurisprudence or legalism, which has afflicted the Western Church. In its reaction to this legalism, the Reformation went even further than its opponent. The bureaucratic empowered ministerium, this anti-hierarchical ecclesiastical democracy, means secularization allowed within the church. It inevitably leads to church provincialism. The elective principle is able to establish the unity of the church only externally. The only consistent form of such a fundamental fragmentation of the church is congregationalism, and even further Quakerism, with a complete denial of hierarchy in the name of immediate personal inspiration - also a soit disant of the universal priesthood. There are two poles in this actual denial of hierarchical conciliarity: the anti-hierarchism of Quakerism and papism. Can a historical argument have decisive force in denying hierarchy, namely, an indication that it does not arise immediately and that the first church, in a certain sense, lived without hierarchy? This can be answered by asking whether the ministerium that emerged again in the Reformation is really a restoration of the life of the original church in which the saints lived. the apostles and which has been separated from us for millennia? Or is this a pseudo-historical, romantic reconstruction? On the other hand, is it not precisely in the light of the principle of the universal priesthood and the continuing Pentecost in its gifts that the principle of practical relativism in the means for its expression is most acceptable? It is only necessary to recognize that the primary idea is the universal priesthood, entrusted to the church and carried out by it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in certain forms. This form, consecrated by antiquity, starting from the 1st century, is undoubtedly the hierarchy of episcopal succession. This principle of succession includes (and does not exclude) the elective principle, which is as dear to Protestantism as the Protestant, and at the same time completely hierarchical principle of concentration of power in the elected hierarchy. But, in addition to this, the principle of church unity in the succession of the universal priesthood, the sacerdotium of the church, is established here. Any arbitrary, unnecessary deviation from organic unity or tradition in church life is not only a sin against church love, but also a well-known evil risk that introduces shock and doubt into sacramental action. This is exactly what the elimination of the successive hierarchy in the Reformation was. To what extent it was motivated by the idea of ​​a universal priesthood, there was a misunderstanding here, for if this principle was not sufficiently recognized in Catholic and Catholic theology with its excessive and one-sided application of the ex opere operato principle, then in fact the principle of “apostolic succession” precisely means the universal priesthood of the people of God. And has not the time come to reconsider and test precisely in the light of the principle of the universal priesthood - the Protestant principle of the appointed ministerium, in order to return in its name to the continuously preserved unity of the church in its apostolic hierarchical succession? IV. The sacramental principle in its meaning for the hierarchy So, the episcopate and the presbyterium derived from it have, first of all, a eucharistic-sacramental origin and meaning, it is sacerdotium, such is its mystical root. But thanks to this significance, bishopric also becomes ecclesiastical authority. Canon law is based on the power of the sacrament; episcopacy is sacramental power, and the so-called. apostolic succession has, first of all, sacramental significance for regulating the celebration of the sacraments. None of the other elements of power that arose in the episcopate has such a primary meaning; on the contrary, they all represent derivative, church-historical, and then canonical superstructures on a sacramental basis. The fact of the emerging sacerdotium is used as an organizing force in the church, which is further interpreted pragmatically, often with exaggeration and dogmatic one-sidedness and inaccuracies by church writers of different eras. This hierarchical hyperbolism began with St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, 13 he was followed by St. Irenaeus 14 and who found for him a peculiar completeness of St. Cyprian 15 with his principle of episcopus in ecclesia and ecclesia in episcopo, and in general the theory of “monarchical episcopate”, which found its consistent completion in the Giant Dogma. The bishop is sometimes called the “vicar of Christ” on earth (or even the representative of God) in Orthodox theology, which in its own way does not want to lag behind Roman theology, not always realizing where such statements lead. All these dogmatic hyperboles do not reach the goal because they hit further than it. If in a certain sense it is true that the liturgical bishop or priest bears the image of Christ the High Priest (“in persona Christi”) when celebrating the sacraments and, above all, the Eucharist, then this applies in exactly the same way (except, of course, for ordination) to the entire episcopate and presbytery equally as to the priesthood sacerdotium, and it would be more careful, for the sake of dogmatic accuracy, to refrain from these hyperbolic comparisons. So, the principle of hierarchy is sacramental-eucharistic, it can be expressed in the words of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (Smyrna 8): “that Eucharist must be revered as truth, which is either performed under the direct leadership of the bishop or on his instructions; it is not allowed, in addition to the bishop, to baptize or celebrate love suppers.” V. The power of teaching and hierarchy The historical development of the church generally favored the hierarchy, which, having concentrated its sacramental life around itself, then acquired the significance of a general organ of church unity, church power as such. This power and influence is manifested in other ministries of the hierarchy, besides the sacerdotium, namely the teaching, magisterium, and church government, iurisdictio. The latter went hand in hand with the nationalization of the church, thanks to the connection between the church and the empire, the cooperation of church and civil authorities, sacerdotium et imperium, the spiritual bishopric and the “external”, imperial. Jurisdiction, as well as the teaching power of the hierarchy, were completely natural and normal consequences of sacramentalism concentrated in the hands of the hierarchy, for the power to administer the sacraments in general is the highest and final power, which cannot be compared with any other. The fate of the development of this power in the east and west was different in that in the west the development of the power of the hierarchy, as a monarchical episcopate, reached its limit in papism, while the east, following the same path, by the grace of God stopped in the middle and did not reach the limit. The teaching power of the hierarchy, of course, does not belong to the number of sacramental gifts. There is no hierarchical charisma infallibilitatis proclaimed by Vatican dogma. Bishops not only do not have infallibility in their teaching, but actually made mistakes: the history of the church knows heretics equally among popes, patriarchs, and bishops. Crowded episcopal councils were possible, but they were rejected and condemned by the church (like the robber council of Ephesus, the iconoclastic council of 764, and then the union councils of Lyon and Florence). The Eastern Church in its doctrine is always in danger of replacing individual papism with collective papism, and replacing the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility with the infallibility of the collective pope - the episcopate. For this purpose, a fiction is created of the unanimity of the episcopate, which was allegedly manifested at ecumenical councils, as in all the most important cases in the life of the church. Those familiar with the history of ecumenical councils know how far from the truth this idea of ​​episcopal unanimity is. Of course, after various amputations, with the assistance of not only spiritual, but also secular authorities, a certain unanimity was established (although also not always: one only needs to recall the history of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus), but this unanimity was not always a guarantee of truth: it is enough to recall the Iconoclastic Council and the Florence Council. As a result of these comparisons, it turns out that the authorization of conciliar decrees is carried out not only by the episcopate, as such, but by the entire church people, its “reception”, conciliarly. Usually, as an objection to this truth, they point out that everything. the councils consisted of only bishops, and this alleged fact is cited in defense of the idea of ​​​​collective papism. But, firstly, it is necessary to take into account in this fact the influence of the secular authorities, which invited bishops to the council, as well as the difficulties of the then means of communication; secondly, we must remember the presence of lay people at the council, namely the emperor (“external bishop”) and imperial officials, as well as other persons, for example, numerous monks at the 7th ecumenical. cathedral (not to mention papal representatives, usually priests). There has never been a special canonical-dogmatic resolution on the exclusively episcopal composition of councils, which is why at the present time, given the changed conditions of all life, this practice can be considered abandoned (in particular, the Moscow Council of 1917–18 consisted of representatives not only of the ruling episcopate, but also of the clergy and laity, like similar meetings of the Anglican Church and the convocation of the American Episcopalian). The idea of ​​collective papism, i.e. unanimous infallibility) of the decisions of the bishops, is generally painted in the colors of Romanism and differs from it only in less consistency; to proclaim the Eastern Vatican dogma of the infallibility of the episcopate would mean going against not only history, but also life itself. Such a dogmatic claim would have as its basis the Roman idea of ​​an external organ of infallibility, analogous to the pope ex cathedra. But such a body, such an automaton of infallible judgments does not exist in Orthodoxy, for, according to the message of the Eastern patriarchs, we have the entire church body, and not just the hierarchy, to preserve the church truth. and the whole church testifies to the truth, led by the Holy Spirit. The absence of such an external body in the church, which is usually considered weakness and helplessness on the Roman side, is in fact an advantage, for it is more consistent with the nature of the church, which the Holy Spirit Himself teaches all truth in His own ways. Nevertheless, the hierarchy, by virtue of its sacramental power and in connection with it, naturally belongs to the special right of teaching, ius magisterii, the preservation and confession of church truth. First of all, it belongs to her in connection with divine services and sacramental activities, catechesis and preaching. The bishop oversees the teaching of the church. However, this teaching does not constitute a sacramental privilege of the hierarchy, which would be completely inaccessible to the laity. 16 On the contrary, the laity, with the blessing of the relevant hierarch, are allowed to preach even during divine services, and even more so outside of it, not to mention the fact that they have the right, and under certain conditions the obligation, of theological judgment (even at the Vatican Council a place was given to theologians). It would be one of the intolerable superstitions to think that hierarchical charisma replaces and makes up for the lack of theological knowledge and, in general, represents a kind of magic that turns ignoramuses into theologians. Naturally, rather the opposite: the hierarch is required to be prepared for his service. But in addition to this church preaching, the hierarchy has the right and duty of observing church truth and its authoritative proclamation. Without claiming doctrinal infallibility, bishops are nevertheless the mouth of the church, in agreement with it, authoritatively and powerfully proclaiming church judgments. In this sense, both at ecumenical and local councils, the last authoritative judgment rightfully belongs to the bishops (at the Moscow Council, bishops in special sessions had the right to veto the resolutions of the council). This right of the bishopric in general and of the individual bishop in particular 17 can be called conditional infallibility. Pragmatically we can say that indicium epscopati pro veritate habeturdonee corrigetur, or sinon corrigetur by the Church. This is even more true, of course, in relation to actions of doctrinal significance or dogmatic facts. In particular, on the paths of ecumenical rapprochement, the episcopate is now given the opportunity to take certain powerful and authoritative steps and make responsible decisions. (In particular, in matters of sacramental intercommunion, he also has direct decisive power). However, it should be emphasized with no less force here that this power can only be exercised in agreement with the church people. The hierarchy cannot give unilateral orders here, as the history of the Florence Council quite eloquently testifies to this. Its definitions could not be imposed by the hierarchy on the people. The same must be kept in mind today in matters of ecumenical rapprochement. The hierarchy does not have the power to order a union unless it is prepared and accepted by the church people. In addition to all this, we must not forget that hierarchical succession and the sacraments do not exhaust the grace-filled life of the church. In the church there is a direct, immediate acceptance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the power of prophecy, which the Apostle commanded not to quench. This prophetic ministry in its essence cannot be standardized, for the Spirit breathes where it wants. But for this question about potestas magisterii, it is important that, along with hierarchical magisterium, the church also knows prophetic, that is, essentially lay magisterium. Therefore, the teaching powers and possibilities of teaching in the church are not limited to the hierarchy. It remains the responsibility of the hierarchy to proclaim and formalize the truth, and authoritative testimony about it. VI. Hierarchy and jurisdiction The hierarchy has, further, potestas iurisdictionis, the power to rule church life, first and foremost in the sacramental realm. This side of it is, of course, in connection with the sacramental power itself; there is also a “superstructure” on this “base”, but it has an entirely historical origin, there is an iure ecclesiastico. The canonical structure of the church in each era is nothing more than the consolidation of the actual state of affairs in church law. There is no dogmatic basis for this or that canonical system, which the Roman Church wants to have, all in the same papal dogma. A historical example of the clash of two different worldviews on the issue of the nature of canonical authority is the attitude to the famous 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council (Council of Chalcedon), which established the pentarchy of patriarchs (similar to the “five senses”) and exalted the See of Constantinople almost to the level of the Roman See. This exaltation was justified in canon 28 frankly and decisively for reasons not dogmatic or even canonical, but historical - the actual significance of Constantinople as the “king city”, the political and cultural capital of the empire. This motivation was, of course, deliberately tendentious in the sense that the same reasons motivated the position of Rome, also as a royal city. Of course, in Rome, where the primacy of the papal throne was dogmatically motivated, they could not agree with such a reduction of Roman primacy to an accident of historical conjuncture, which could change, as it did change, both for Rome and for Constantinople, after the fall of Byzantium. Example 28 of the canon is very indicative and is of fundamental importance for the present time, when the entire historical situation has changed beyond recognition. The sacramental connection of individual bishops, located in some general church unity, is expressed in the ordination of a bishop by two or three bishops from other bishops, and, consequently, in their recognition in solidum by not only their private churches, but also the universal episcopate and the universal church in general. The emergence of a new bishopric or the installation of a new bishop always leads beyond the local limitations of a given diocese, and on the basis of this alone one cannot speak of a monarchical episcopate, which has always been either a polemical fiction or a dogmatic hobby. Episcopacy could only be conciliar, both in its origin and existence. Only the Roman See, by virtue of the dogmatic proclamation of papism, represents the only consistent example of a monarchical episcopate. There remains only one path to a truly monarchical episcopate: “to Canossa.” The sacramental necessity of the relationship between individual bishops, which has its basis in the conciliarity of the church, has always required a certain orderliness and agreement, canonical norms, which were implemented in church rules established at church councils. Thus, the second, third, and further floors of the canonical hierarchy arise; this represents only the vital development of the 34 apostolic canon that the bishops of every nation should have the first among themselves. This principle is realized in the formation of metropolises and patriarchates, which are emerging again before our eyes and, of course, in this emergence, the ancient pentarchy is least of all taken into account. The principle of canonical jurisdiction is not only combined with the sacramental principle, as a regulating principle, but also argues with it, in some cases exaggerating itself and even seeming to obscure it. In the history of the church, canonical disputes have created and are creating many church schisms that encroach on the very power of the sacrament. This includes various canonical prohibitions in secrecy, which cause such sad and painful phenomena of schism. As in all human affairs, the proper balance is not always maintained between what can be called the canonical logic of things and the lust for power of individual hierarchs or departments, contrary to the wise rule: pas trop gouverner, for the area of ​​the church is not the area of ​​the empire. History has linked canonical unities with state ones (from which comes the emergence of national-state patriarchates). But we must remember that the real sacramental unit in the church is the bishopric, which is in connection with the whole church, Cyprian: episcopus in ecclesia. And in the face of the excessive centralization of huge national-state churches, which weighs heavily on the development of local life, has not the time come in our time to gradually give place to individual episcopal communities, like the apostolic ones, with the overcoming of Eastern papism of various types, but with the restoration in full force of the principle of conciliarity? The type of sacramental-hierarchical “congregationalism” of the bishops is more consistent with both the essence of Orthodoxy and the needs of the historical moment than the belated restoration of church-states. In addition, states have long become laic, and are striving for the separation of church and state at a time when church organizations are trying to maintain and even perpetuate this connection. The Constantinian era of the connection between church and state has passed, and the Orthodox Church has entered (obviously after the Russian Revolution) into the post-Constantinian era. We find an instructive comparison in the canonical structure of the Church in Protestantism, which, having rejected the sacramental nature of the hierarchy and turned it into an elective ministry, at the same time erected a very impressive canonical organization on this foundation. We are no longer talking about the connection between the church and the state in the Reformation, according to the principle of cuius regio euius religio, or the primacy of the secular sovereign in the church in the English establishment, but also about the very structure of church power. Protestantism in both its branches, both Lutheranism and Reformation, established a whole system of canonical bodies of the general church government, either on an elective basis, or directly for state purposes. Thus, instead of a hierarchical structure of the church, we got a church bureaucracy that governs the church (the whole abnormality of this situation has been sufficiently exposed in our days in Germany). But does this system correspond to the ideal of the early Christian church, in the name of which the reform was carried out and the sacramental hierarchy was rejected? How much do these consistories, superintendents, etc. resemble? ancient charismatics, although Protestantism wants to be a prophetic-charismatic church? Overcoming this secularization and some kind of frank and legalized caesarepapism or democracy (instead of conciliarity) is possible only on the path of overcoming the revolutionary moment in the reformation, namely in the restoration of the sacramental hierarchy. And isn’t this secularization of the church not covered by the same dark shadow of medieval papism, which the Reformation wanted to remove? In the Protestant world, a call has been made more than once to overcome and, as it were, complete and correct the Reformation (Harnack), but until now this call has been understood rather in the sense of a destructive criticism of Christian dogmas. But has not the time really come to continue the reformation, freeing it from the shadow of papism that lies over it, albeit with a negative coefficient? This same wish can also be addressed to certain Orthodox representatives who, in theory and in practice, sometimes strive to implement second-class papism, namely without a pope, or, even worse, collective papism. Without at all wishing to belittle the dignity of the Roman Patriarchate, the great apostolic church of the West, we nevertheless consider it essential for the fate of Christianity in the quest for unification, for the ecumenical movement, the internal overcoming of papism in our own environment - in the name of church conciliarity. This includes the absence of a definite distinction between bishops and elders, in Acts 20, 17, 28; equal to Titus, 1.5–7; Phil. 1, 1, 1 Tim. Ch. 3 (deacons) etc. Tridentin cons, canones de sacramentis in genere, can. I (Sess. VII) Confessio Dosith., artic. XV. Conf. orth. pars 3, qu. 99. This, however, does not exclude the possibility of direct apostolic hierarchical succession (in all the vagueness of this term) in individual cases, for example, in Rome (according to St. Irenaeus and others), at least it can be hypothetically constructed to prove a certain thesis. However, exceptions in this case do not confirm the general rule. Essays on the early history of the Church and the ministry, edited by H. B. Swete. C. H. Turner. Apostolic Succession, b. 105, D06, 108, 109, 129. “The holy Church was catholic as well as apostolic. It was not one line of descent, but many, which linked the Church of Irinaeus, and Tertullian with the Church of the Apostles; in brief it Was not the Apostolic succession, but the Apostolic successions” (106–7). “Like to Irinaeus, to Hegasippus, and to Tertullian, bishops have their place in the apostolic succession only in connection with the churches over which they preside (129). In Conf. Dosit., art. X, first the universal episcopal succession from the apostles is affirmed, and then it is added: “the bishop is elected not by priests or presbyters, and not by secular authorities, but by the council of the highest church of the region where the city for which the ordainer is appointed is located, or at least by the council of the region where the bishop should be. Sometimes, however, the city itself elects, but not simply, but presents its election to the council. According to the rite of ordination, it follows that the laying on of hands of the bishop (or bishops - during episcopal ordination) is not only not given final significance in the sacrament, but it is associated only with his appeal to the church about the conciliar prayer for the one being ordained, the performance of the sacrament. “By the election and skill of the most God-loving bishops and the entire consecrated council (preceding the word only at episcopal ordination), divine grace, always healing the weak and replenishing the impoverished, prophesies (such and such to such and such a degree). Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the Holy Spirit may fall upon him,” and the church prays (“kyrie eleison”) together with the bishop, so that the requested grace may descend (In the rite of deaconal ordination it also reads: “not by the laying on of my hands, but by visiting the rich bounties of Thy grace is given to those worthy of Thee”! “Prophesying” προμειρίκεσγαι refers to the election of the person being ordained, moreover, not only by the bishop, but also by the people. Thus, the organic connection of the person being ordained with the church is included in conciliarity, included in the ordination itself. The same idea about the participation of the clergy and the people in the sacrament is expressed in the formula Apostolicae constitutiones VIII, 6; Thyself, even now, look upon this Thy servant, with a voice to the judgment of the clergy of all in the presbytery given and fill him with the spirit of grace and counsel,” etc. St. John Chrysostom says: “Great is the power of the council or churches. Their sentence is important; it elevates those who approach them to spiritual levels. That is why the one preparing to ordain asks for their prayers, and they give their voice and proclaim what is known to the sanctified, but not everything can be revealed to the unsanctified” (Ad. 2 Gor. hom. 18). Wed. essay by N. Aksakov “The Tradition of the Church and the Tradition of the School” (Theological Bulletin, 1908). “No small sin,” says Clement in his epistle, will be upon us if we do not reproachfully and holyly deprive those who bring gifts (προευεγκόιας) of their episcopacy” (44). Christians “must do everything in order that the Lord has commanded. “He commanded that sacrifices and sacred acts should not be performed at random and not without order, but at certain times and hours” (40), and not everywhere and not at all times, but in Jerusalem and only by the high priests with other servants (41). Therefore, in the Christian church, the apostles appointed bishops and deacons (42). And like the Old Testament priesthood, the apostles established the order of succession of bishops. His call to obey the bishop is closely intertwined with the call to participate in the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop. “Whoever is not inside the altar deprives himself of the bread of God. If the prayer of two has great power, then how much stronger is the prayer of a bishop and an entire church” (Eph. 5). “So, try to have one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, as well as one bishop with the elders and the dragons, my fellow servants” (Philad. 3 m 4). “They move away from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins... Without a bishop, no one should do anything related to the church. Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop or the one to whom he grants it” (Smyrna 5-8), etc. In St. Ignatius we have the most vivid eucharistic concept of episcopate, to which other motives are further added. In the Teaching of the 12 Apostles (preceded by the Epistle of St. Ignatius), although the celebration of the Eucharist belongs to the prophets, but along with them are also called bishops and deacons, whose main duty is the orderly celebration of the Eucharist (Didache, 15). Practice, of course, knows such cases (for example, Bishop Theophan the Recluse celebrated the Liturgy daily in his solitude), but then the participation of the people, that is, the entire church, is undoubtedly implied. Since the sacrament of baptism can be performed by the laity, it could not be the sacramental basis for the hierarchy. The absence of a sacramental hierarchy in Protestantism is not an obstacle to the validity of the sacrament of baptism. It should also be noted that it does not apply to women at all, since they do not take part in ordination. “Everyone, honor the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the elders as the assembly of God, as the host of the apostles. Without them there is no church” (Tral. 3). Of course, such hyperbolic expressions cannot lay claim to dogmatic accuracy, just like the following: “all of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbyter as the apostles. Honor the deacons as the Commandment of God” (Smir. 8); “the bishop presides in the church as the image of God, the elders in the image of the assembly of the apostles, while the deacons are entrusted with the ministry of I. Christ himself” (Magnes. 6): “As I. Christ is the thought of the Father, so the bishops are in the thought (ἐν γμώμη) of I. Christ” (Eph. 3). Therefore, “one must obey the bishop as Jesus Christ himself” (Tral. 2). “Whoever obeys a bishop obeys not him, but the Father of I. Christ, the Bishop of all” (Magn. 3). “The bishop should be looked upon as the Lord himself.” For a similar rhetorical definition, see Conf. Dos., art. X: “the bishop, as the apostolic successor... is the living image of God on earth.” St. Irenaeus, in the fight against the Gnostics, who asserted themselves in the possession of the hidden tradition, places the main emphasis on the preservation of true tradition in the episcopate of apostolic succession, which is confirmed by the example of the Roman Church: Adv. haeres. Sh. 3. Likewise Hegesippus and Tertullian (Praeser. adv. haer. 32, ad. Marcionem IV, 5). The doctrine of hierarchy in St. Cyprian oscillates between two centers: on the one hand, the solidarity (in solidum) of the entire episcopate, which binds the unity of the Church, and on the other, in accepting its visible center in the apostle. Peter (although Cyprian himself does not want to recognize episcopus episcoporum in Rome). His main idea about monarchical episcopate is also twofold: episcopus in ecclesia et ecclesia in episcopo, because it can be equally understood in the sense of papist episcopalism as well as the conciliar principle. However, he also retains the sacramental principle of hierarchy: ut sacerdotes qui sacrificia dei cotidie celebramus (Ep. 57, 3), and even the idea of ​​conciliarity, as the unity of sacerdos with the people (plebs), is not eliminated: illi sunt ecclesia plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens. Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo. (cp. 66, 8). This is not contradicted by his parallel principle that the unity of the church is connected with the episcopate (the famous controversy about the two texts regarding the Apostle Peter, de Unitate p. 4, is not of decisive importance here). The Cyprian principle that each of the bishops in solidum - holistically, conciliarly, belongs to the episcopate, is at the same time connected with it, but also personally authorized - is extremely important for the sacramental interpretation of hierarchism. Rule 64 of the “fifth-sixth” Trullo Council prohibits the laity from public (“before the people”) preaching of dogmatic content (obviously, without the direct permission or order of the bishop), but, of course, not teaching itself in general. Here it is not inappropriate to recall Cyprian's in solidum: each individual bishop has a universal bishopric as such, not in part, but in its entirety.