Священство

§ 160. The concept of the sacrament of the priesthood. Divine establishment of the sacrament Feature of the sacrament. – Visible sacred action and divine grace transmitted by the Holy Spirit. – The establishment of the sacrament of the priesthood by the Lord Jesus Christ. – The Apostles and the shepherds of the Church ordained by them. The power and right to legally perform the sacraments and, in general, the power of shepherding does not belong to all believers in Jesus Christ without distinction. but to the pastors of the church, bishops and elders. They do not acquire their dignity and power to bring down the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments to themselves, but have it from the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit through a special visible sacred act, called the sacrament of the priesthood or ordination (χειροτονία). The priesthood, as a sacrament, is a sacred act in which, through the prayerful laying on of the bishop’s hands on the head of the one who is correctly chosen and initiated, divine grace is brought down, giving him the divine authority and power to perform the sacraments and shepherd the flock of Christ (Katikh.). The divine establishment of the sacrament of the priesthood is presupposed by the divine establishment and meaning of the very hierarchy of the New Testament church. The hierarchy was established in the church to be an instrument of the actions of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, in teaching and in the government of the church, and so that through it, by succession from the apostles who received the Holy Spirit from I. Christ, the current of grace would continuously flow from the source - Christ and to peoples distant from Him by time and distance. It is obvious that the appointment of persons called to be an instrument of the actions of the Spirit of God can be carried out by the Holy Spirit, and not by people, therefore, the method of appointment must be special, divine, mysterious and, at the same time, visible. Scripture also contains positive indications of the establishment by I. Christ of a special sacred rite, through which the Holy Spirit places the chosen one in the service of the church. First of all, this can be deduced from the Gospel story about the actions of the Supreme High Priest in relation to the apostles. The Gospels indicate that the consecration of the apostles to the work of ministry took place not suddenly, but gradually. I. Christ first called individual men (for example, Philip, Nathanael, Simon, Andrew, John), then from among His disciples He chose twelve men, called apostles, and gave them authority to preach the approach of the kingdom of God and the power to cast out demons and heal diseases. When the apostles were called and elected to serve Christianity, of course, there could not yet be initiation in the church sense. But after His resurrection, confirming the sending of the apostles to the world, I. Christ said to them: just as the Father sent Me, I send you too. And these things he said, and breathed, and said unto them: Receive the Holy Spirit; Whose sins he forgives, they are forgiven to them, and to them he holds it, and holds it (John 20:21-23). Finally, before His ascension, He led them out of the city and raised up His hands (επάρας τάς χείρας) to bless them (Luke 24:50). This breath and blessing are significant. A breath with the words: receive the Holy Spirit and in connection with sending them to the work of serving the whole world, cannot be understood as simply a meaningless action, but it is more correct to see in it the hierarchical placement by the Savior Himself of His disciples and the granting by the latter of that Spirit, which abides by His known gift only in the hierarchy, but not the granting of the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, poured out on them on the day of Pentecost. The blessing with the raising of hands, given to the apostles at the ascension of the Savior, is also significant. It is not an ordination in the strict sense, but it is not an ordinary farewell blessing: it was a symbol of His eternal co-presence with His disciples, a symbol of His last words: Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age, and a very significant symbol, showing that His grace-filled sanctification should have extended not to the apostles alone, but also to their successors, whom the apostles did not ordain themselves, but by the grace and power of Christ, acting as His instruments. In the breath with the communication of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of the Savior, therefore, one should see the establishment of a special mysterious method of ordination to hierarchical service and the prototype for the consecration of the apostles of their successors through the conferment, in short, the establishment of the priesthood as a sacrament. The apostles actually committed consecration to pastoral service through a special sacred rite - ordination, combined with the communication of special grace-filled gifts. History testifies that in the church after the apostolic age, ordination to hierarchical service was accomplished no other way than through a special sacred act - the laying on of hands, and the meaning of the sacrament was acquired by the laying on of hands. This is evident not only from the testimonies of individual fathers and teachers of the church (mainly in instructions on the priesthood and interpretations of Scripture), but also from the decrees of the councils (I Vs. Sob. 4 and 19 ave.; IV Vs. Sob. 2 Ave.), and the preserved ancient rites of ordinations (for example, in the Post. Ap. VIII book). The priesthood is also recognized as a sacrament in all Christian societies of the East, which in ancient times fell away from the Catholic Church. § 161. The visible side of the sacrament of the priesthood. His invisible actions Ordination. – Prayerful invocation of the Holy Spirit on the chosen one. - The grace of the priesthood. I. The celebration of the sacrament of the priesthood, when appointed to all hierarchical degrees in the Orthodox Church, is combined with the liturgy, so that those newly ordained to serve the church and, in particular, those awarded the authority to perform the sacraments can immediately upon initiation participate in the offering of a bloodless sacrifice. The most essential thing in the rite of consecration (consecration) is the episcopal ordination of the one being ordained and prayer (Posl. eastern past. 10 members. Right. 109). The apostles always used the laying on of hands when ordaining them to the rank of priesthood. Through the laying on of hands, seven men were appointed to manage the funds of the community in the community of Jerusalem (Acts 6:6). In Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, St. Paul and Barnabas ordained (χειροτονήσαντες) elders for the whole church (14, 23). It is said about Timothy that the gift that lives in him was imparted to him with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood (1 Timothy 4:14), - through my ordination (1 Tim 1:6), i.e. St. Paul, as primate, with complicity or consent to the establishment of the presbytery (episcopate). By ordaining themselves to the priesthood through ordination, the apostles and their successors commanded to use ordination in this case. Do not lay your hands (χειρας – plural) quickly on anyone (1 Tim 5:22), inspired the apostle. Pavel to Timothy. The laying on of hands is necessarily accompanied by a prayerful invocation of the Holy Spirit on the person being ordained, which gives the action of ordination a mysteriously grace-filled meaning. The use of prayer during dedication is sanctified by the example of St. apostles Thus, those chosen to serve the meals were placed before the apostles, who, having prayed, laid their hands on them (6, 6). Prayer accompanied the election by lot and canonization of Matthias as an apostle in place of the fallen Judas (1:23–26). Hands were laid in prayer on Saul and Barnabas in Antioch, when the Holy Spirit called them to the work of ministry (13: 1-3). The use of prayer during dedication is understandable in itself. Prayer, the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the chosen clergyman, is accompanied by the laying on of hands and, according to the contents of the Orthodox (Greek and Russian) Church, the rite of this sacrament. According to this rite, when ordaining a deacon or presbyter, “the bishop lays his hand on the head” of the one being ordained, and during the consecration of a bishop, the first bishop “puts his right hand” on the head of the one being ordained, while other bishops participating in the ordination, also placing their hands on the head of the one being ordained, hold with their left the gospel lying on his head, - announces the election, appointment or determination for the ordination of such and such to such and such a degree or to elevation to such and such a dignity and invites the whole church to pray for the sacrament to be accomplished, that is, for the sending of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming: “Divine grace, always weak in healing and becoming scarce in replenishing, guarantees (προ χειρίζεται, i.e. “announces”, “elects”, appoints”; Acts 22:14, where Ananias tells Saul that the God of our fathers has chosen you - προχειρίσατο) - the name of the one being ordained - the most reverent subdeacon to the deacon (or the deacon to the presbyter, or the most God-loving archimandrite elected to the bishop); Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come (hence, the sacrament has not yet taken place) upon him.” Then, having his hand on the head of the one being consecrated and marking the one being consecrated with a cross, the celebrant of the sacrament secretly reads two prayers (“Lord our God”, “God our Savior”), in which he calls on the grace of the All-Holy Spirit to “the one being prosecuted”, so that grace would sanctify him and grant him the strength to carry out his service worthily. The proclamation “Divine grace” and two secretly read prayers, as is revealed from the entire rite of consecration, constitute one inseparable whole - the secretly fulfilling words of consecration. The ordained person, at the conclusion of the rite of ordination and after putting on the vestments belonging to the degree, is given: to the deacon - a ripida, so that, blowing over the saint. gifts, he showed through this the experience of his service during the sacred rite, to the presbyter - part of the Holy. The Lamb (after the transposition of the Holy Gifts) with the admonition: “Accept this pledge and keep it safe and sound until your last breath, for which you were tortured to be at the second and terrible coming of the great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” II. Prayer and ordination are combined with the communication of grace to those who accept hierarchical service, which is necessary and appropriate to this service - the grace of the priesthood. So, when the apostles, having prayed, laid their hands on the seven men chosen to serve meals, these men received the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:10; fn. 8, 29). Instruction of the Ap. Paul to the shepherds of Ephesus: take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in whom the Holy Spirit has appointed bishops, to shepherd the church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:18), suggests that those appointed by the Holy Spirit also received the gift of grace in order to worthily fulfill their ministry. In the epistles to Timothy, the apostle says: do not neglect the gift that dwells in you (τοί έν σοι χαρίσματος), which was given to you by prophecy (διά τής προφητείας) with the laying on of hands priesthood (1 Tim 4:14). I remember you to kindle the gift of God that lives in you (το χάρισμα τού Θεού, ό, έστιν έν σοι) by the laying on of my hand (2 Tim 1:6). § 162. The uniqueness of the priesthood. The Question of the “Indelibility” of Priesthood Grace The question of the uniqueness of the priesthood. – A related issue is the recognition of the priesthood when joining the Church from the Monophysite, Nestorian and Roman Catholic churches. – Ordinations in Protestant and schismatic societies. —What does the “indelible character” of the grace of the priesthood mean? I. The grace of the priesthood, or the gift imparted by this sacrament. The apostle calls the one who is ordained living in the soul, therefore, not subject to renewal or communication again by a new ordination. Therefore, the Church has always recognized and recognizes the priesthood as a unique sacrament, just like baptism. Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon is ordained another time, no matter what moral changes occur in them. “It is not permissible for there to be re-baptism or re-arrangement” (Carthage own rights. 59: sn. 36 pr.). “If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, receives a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed from the sacred rank” (approx. 68). Recognizing the uniqueness of the sacrament, the church acted and acts in accordance with this in relation to the priesthood, as well as baptism, in Christian societies separated from the Catholic unity in cases of their ministers turning to the Orthodox Church. Since the basis of the legal priesthood is the continuous succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit from the apostles through the ordination of priestly superiors, then in societies that have retained the continuity of this succession and the sacrament of the priesthood, even if these societies separated from the Orthodox Church in any private opinions that did not concern the foundations of faith, the essence and power of the sacraments, or in any peculiar rituals, the church recognized and recognizes the priesthood as canonically correct, and therefore accepts into communion with him the hierarchical persons of these societies in their “existing rank,” and even more so those who were ordained in the Orthodox Church, but for a time deviated into heresy or schism and then repented. Thus, our church recognizes as valid the priesthood of the Roman Catholic, Armenian, Copts and Nestorians, and clergy who convert to Orthodoxy from these confessions are accepted in their degrees of priesthood, through repentance and written renunciation of errors. But the Orthodox Church does not recognize the hierarchy of Protestant societies, which deny the very sacrament of the priesthood. Equally, it does not recognize as correct and legitimate the priesthood and sacred rites found in schismatic societies (the so-called Old Believers), not excluding the so-called. Austrian or Belokrinitsky hierarchy. II. Another question is connected with the question of the uniqueness of the sacrament of the priesthood: is the grace of the priesthood indelibly communicated and with it the ability to perform sacred rites (in particular for bishops - to transfer hierarchical power to others), just as baptism leaves an indelible seal, or in certain sad circumstances, when persons of the priesthood are completely defrocked, leaves them forever? In the Roman Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent, the doctrine has been accepted and anathematized that the grace of the priesthood has an indelible character (character indelebilis, Signum indelebile), that one ordained to one or another hierarchical degree cannot again become a layman, that in general the power of priesthood granted in ordination cannot be taken away (Conc. trid. sess. XXIII, cap. IV et can. IV). Therefore, the abdication or deposition of a hierarchical person deprives him only of the right to reveal the power of his degree, but not the power itself, and in certain cases, according to some Roman theologians, it is even necessary for the deposed person to show his hierarchical powers when, for example, a layman is in mortal danger, and there is no priest with canonical powers near him, and the sacraments performed in such cases, not excluding ordination, are valid and cannot be repeated. But the doctrine of the “indelible character” of the priesthood cannot be based on St. Scripture. Sometimes they cite in confirmation of his place St. The Scriptures (point specifically to 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6, interpreting these passages in connection with 2 Cor. 1 and Eph. 1:13; 4:30), but they do not contain the thought of the indelible character of the priesthood. There is no reason to recognize this teaching as being in agreement with the view of the Universal Church, expressed in the canons and practice. True, when someone is deposed illegally, without guilt, then, according to the rules of the church, the church authority can always restore him to the holy rank (ap. pr. 28; IV Ecumenical Council. pr. 29; Antioch. Sob. 12 pr.; Sardik. pr. 5, 14 and 17), and, therefore, such an eruption does not entail the deprivation of the grace of the priesthood. Cases of the return of dignity to persons who had been wrongfully deprived of it occurred both in the ancient church (for example, the fathers of the IV Ecumenical Council restored many bishops who had been illegally anathematized and defrocked at the Council of Ephesus in 449) and in later times (for example, in the 9th century, Patr. Ignatius and Photius, in our country - Patr. Nikon). There were many such examples when those legally defrocked and even excommunicated from the church, then, after they had repented, were restored to their rank and accepted into communion with the church in their degrees (I Ecumenical Coll. 8 Ave.; Carth. coll. 79 Ave; Afan. Al. Last to Rufinian). The rules of the councils generally allow for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the priesthood and then restoring hierarchical rights, combined to a certain degree (Ank. sob. 1 and 2, etc.; Antioch. sob. 3, etc.). But the canons of the Ecumenical Church sometimes clearly indicate such a prohibition or deprivation of the rights of priestly service, which is associated with complete “dismissal from the priesthood.” With such an eruption of the rule, they threaten, for example, bishops, presbyters and deacons, under the guise of reverence, expelling their wives and remaining adamant in this action (5 St. Apostles); The same eruption is subjected to those who renounce the name of Christ (62 Ave.), the main culprits and distributors of heresies (Athan. to Rufinian) and in general those guilty of serious crimes (Ap. Ave. 31; Antioch. 5 Ave.; Carth. 36 Ave. Basil. V. to Amphil. 3 Ave.). The church verdict in many cases in the rules on the deposition of clergy is stated in such decisive terms that give the idea not only of the taking away of external honor and office, but of the complete deprivation of the priesthood, of the without a trace taking away what was given at initiation. Our native saint - the theologian Metropolitan. Filaret, regarding the doctrine of the indelible character of the priesthood, says: “the acceptance of this teaching would lead to the fact that no one should be deprived of the priesthood for anything; and this would be contrary to numerous rules of St. apostle, cathedrals and st. father" (Collected opinions and reviews IV vol. 478 pp.). § 163. Degrees of priesthood. Their origin and differences between themselves Bishops. - Elders. - Deacons. According to the different needs of the church, the permanent hierarchy of the Christian church has been divided since ancient times and consists of three degrees, namely, bishop, presbyter and deacon, and the grace-filled powers imparted to those ordained to these degrees are not imparted to the same extent. This was once the case in the Old Testament Church, in which there existed a hierarchy established by God of three degrees. I. The first and highest degree of priesthood in the New Testament church is the degree of bishop (έπίσκοπος - observer, overseer, guardian). Bishops are the bearers of the highest grace of the priesthood, combining in themselves the fullness of the hierarchical power of the apostles; from them and through them all degrees of the priesthood receive both continuity and meaning. In particular, the bishop is, firstly, the main teacher in his church both for ordinary believers and for the shepherds themselves (Post. Eastern Patr. 10 members). Ap. Paul especially commands the bishop: pay attention to yourself and the teaching and remain in them: for by doing this, you yourself will be saved and those who will obey you (1 Tim 4:16); preach the word, be present in season and without season, reprove, rebuke, entreat with all longsuffering and teaching (2 Tim 4:2-5). The apostle entrusts the bishop with the responsibility of preparing and teaching the faith to future teachers (2 Tim 2:2). Secondly, the bishop, by the power of the Spirit, is the first celebrant and performer of the sacraments in his private church (Post. v. p. 10 ch.). Some sacred rites, both in ancient times and now, are exclusively granted to him, such as: the right to ordination to sacred degrees (ordination) and installation (ordination) to other church ranks (Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim. 5, 22; Apostle pr. 2; Ant. pr. 9), the right to consecrate the chrism and altar or antimension (Carth. pr. 6). The bishop, finally, is the chief ruler in his private church (Acts 20:28). First of all, he has power over the hierarchy and clergy subordinate to him, who do nothing in the church without his permission and are subject to his supervision and judgment (1 Tim. 5:19). In addition to the clergy, the entire flock entrusted to him is subject to the spiritual authority of the bishop. He “especially and predominantly has the power to bind and decide” (Seq. v. p. 10 parts; ap. rights. 31; Carth. 6 pr.). The degree of bishop is a divine institution, and not a human one, established under the apostles, and not in later times appearing in the church and for any human reasons. True, in Scripture there is no literally expressed commandment about the establishment of the episcopal rank, but there are indications of the apostolic origin of this dignity. So, when the writer of the book. Act.ap. says that app. Paul and Barnabas, passing through Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, ordained elders (πρεσβυτέρους) for each church (Acts 14:20, 23), then undoubtedly indicates the installation of bishops, and not elders (although the former are called by the name of elders in this case). This is revealed from the fact that pastors are ordained by St. Paul and Barnabas for each church, that is, for the church of each city (cf. Titus 1:5), and for each city church then bishops were installed, not elders. Called ap. Paul from Ephesus and other neighboring cities, the shepherds, called elders (πρεσβυτέρους), were bishops or, at least, there were both bishops and elders: in the speech to them the ap. Paul says that their Holy Spirit has appointed bishops (έθετο επισκόπους) to shepherd the church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:17, 28) 67. Ap. Peter in his first conciliar letter, that is, not to one, but to several churches, each of which should have a bishop, writes: I exhort your elders (πρεσβυτέρους), co-presbyter (συμπρεσβύτερος - 1 Peter 5, 1). It is more correct to think that under the first expression an. Peter means bishops, and not presbyters, for it is impossible to imagine that the apostle, who received the “keys of the kingdom,” in the title “co-priest” equated himself with the second degree of the hierarchy, and not with the first. Ap. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians sends greetings to all the saints... in Philippe with bishops and deacons (1, 1). But particularly clear indications of the divine institution of the episcopal ministry in the church and the advantages associated with this ministry are found in the pastoral letters of the apostle. Paul, that is, to Timothy and Titus, who each stood at the head of his own church. Among the special advantages of the priesthood of these persons, in addition to the right and duty of teaching, common to bishops and presbyters, according to the indicated messages, belongs, firstly, the right and gift to ordain, that is, to bring down the grace of the priesthood on others: do not lay your hands on anyone quickly, says the apostle. Paul to Timothy, share in the sin of others (1 Timothy 5:22). The same authority is given to Titus: for this reason, I left you in Crete, and corrected the unfinished and established presbyters throughout the city (1, 5), and then these persons were given the episcopal position and title (Art. 7). The same epistles provide guidelines regarding the qualities of persons worthy of being appointed to serve the church in the ranks of bishops (1 Tim 3:1–7; Tit. 1:6–9) and deacons (1 Tim 3:8–13). Secondly, to the same persons the apostle assimilates the right of judgment over the elders, rewarding the zealous and rebuking the careless: let the elders who are diligent in good deeds be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17); They did not accept blasphemy against an elder except in the presence of two or three witnesses (1 Tim 5:19). Such powers are powers peculiar only to the highest hierarchical degree - the bishopric, and from this it follows that the bishopric itself is an apostolic institution. II. The second degree of the priesthood consists of elders (πρεσβύτεροι - elders). Presbyters have their grace-filled powers through sacramental ordination from the bishop. Like bishops, they have the power of teaching (1 Tim. 5:17; St. Apostle 58), the power to perform the sacraments and generally sacred rites (James 5:14; St. Apostle Pr. 31, 47 and 49; personal Nik. 18 Pr.), except those exclusively belonging to the bishop (consecration and ordination, consecration of the world and antimensions), the power to knit and decide and in general shepherd the flock of God entrusted to them, but they exercise these powers in dependence and under the supervision of the bishop, subject to his supervision and judgment (Tim 5:19). The presbytery is also of apostolic origin. The first presbyters were installed in Jerusalem, at the head of which, as if some kind of Sanhedrin, stood the ap. James, as the local bishop (Acts 11:30; 15, 2–6, 22–23; 16, 4; 21, 18–25). In all places the book. Acts where they are mentioned, they are depicted acting together and in agreement with the bishop. They also participated in the Apostolic Council. Undoubtedly, the apostles or their collaborators supplied elders in other places as well. Ap. James, in his conciliar letter to the twelve tribes in dispersion, gives the following instruction: if anyone is sick in you, let him call the elders of the church (τους πρεσβυτέρους της εακλησίας), and they will pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord (5:14). The words of the apostle show that elders were appointed outside Jerusalem, and calling them church elders makes it clear that they belonged to the church hierarchy. Ap. Paul instills in Timothy that the elders in charge should be given great honor, especially to those who labor in the word and in doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17). III. The third degree of the church hierarchy is made up of deacons (διάκονος - servant, minister). In a broad sense this word is used in St. Scripture to designate any service in general, and in particular service to the word, the gospel, and the work of redemption. And since the first heralds of the gospel were J. Christ, the apostles and their co-workers, this name is applied to the Savior (Rom. 15:8; Matt. 20:28), to the apostles (for example, 1 Cor. 3:5; 4 Cor. 5, 18; Eph. 3, etc.) and their co-workers, for example, Timothy (1 Sol 3, 2; 2 Tim 4, 5 ). In a close sense and in St. In Scripture and in the language of the church, this name designates a special kind of minister of the church, belonging to the church hierarchy, obliged to help another hierarchical degree in serving the word, in sacred rites, especially the sacraments, in administration and in general in church affairs. The institution of the rank of deacon in the church is assumed in the epistles of St. Pavel. Thus, in greeting all the saints who are in Philippe, with bishops and deacons, the apostle, placing deacons next to bishops, obviously classifies deacons among the ministers of the church. In the letter to Timothy, having listed the qualities of deacons, he directly notes about them: those who have served (διακονήσαντες) a good degree will gain goodness for themselves, that is, they are preparing for themselves a higher degree (1 Tim. 3:13). § 164. Features of the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacrament of the priesthood Features of Roman Catholic teaching in the understanding of the priesthood (the visible side) and the invisible side of the priesthood. – Roman Catholic teaching on the priestly hierarchy. - Celibacy of the priesthood. I. The Roman Church, recognizing the priesthood, that is, elevation to the sacred dignity (ordinatio) by a sacrament (ordo), through which the grace of the New Testament priesthood is given to those legally chosen to serve the church, understands this grace as “the power to sanctify, sacrifice and teach the body and blood of Christ, as well as to forgive and retain sins” (Conc. Trid. sess. XXIII, cap. 1 et et al. can. 1). The authority to celebrate the Eucharist is the most essential authority bestowed through consecration and defining the nature of the priesthood; she is actually potestas ordinis. The power to forgive sins and perform other sacred rites (sacraments) refers to this main power, that is, the power to sacrifice the body and blood of Christ and to sanctify and teach them, as something derivative, auxiliary. The power to bind and decide, for example, is necessarily presupposed and combined with the sacrificial service of the New Testament priests, as their main and most important service, because they must make the faithful capable of receiving the Eucharist, and they can do this only through absolution from sins in repentance. As for the responsibility associated with the priesthood of preaching the word of God (teaching) and pastoral care for the believers, this does not relate to the essence of the priesthood as a sacrament. These powers and duties are “additional and consequential” to the sacrificial service, and constitute the actual power of jurisdiction (potestas jurisdictionis), relating to the mystical body of Christ, that is, His church. They (these powers) are very decently given to the priest, however, the priest would be no less a priest if they were taken away from him, and he does not become any more a priest because Our Lord found it convenient to grant them to him. The narrowness and one-sidedness of this understanding of the essence of the grace-filled powers bestowed in the sacrament of the priesthood is obvious. It is connected in the Roman Catholic Church with its general legal system. Further features of the Roman teaching on the priesthood concern the visible side of the sacrament, the degrees of the priesthood and the persons who can be appointed to the hierarchical service of the church. II. Holy Scripture provides the visible side of the sacrament of the priesthood in the laying on of hands combined with prayer. But in the Roman Catholic Church, new rites were added to ordination at different times (not earlier than the 10th century), namely: a) the rite of “presenting instruments” (traditio or porrectio instrumentorum) to those being ordained, as signs of their office: to those ordained as a deacon - the presentation of the gospel, to the presbyters - a cup with a mixture of wine and water and a dish with a host placed on it, to a bishop - the gospel, a ring as a sign of spiritual betrothal to the church, and a rod or staff as a sign of pastoral authority, and b) the rite of anointing the hands and head of a bishop ordained with myrrh, used at confirmation, and when consecrated to a priest - only his hands with catechumen oil, used at baptism (the meaning of this last anointing is especially difficult to understand). And these additional rites have acquired such importance in the Western Church that the Roman Catholic Church still does not have an exact definition of what constitutes the visible rite of the priesthood, or, as it puts it, the matter of the sacrament. Among its theologians, some indicate this matter in the laying on of hands, others in the anointing, others in the presentation of instruments, so that the bishop can be confident in the communication of the grace of the priesthood only after all the rites have been performed. There is no unanimity in the Roman Church regarding the form, that is, the words by which the grace of the priesthood is communicated to the initiate. In it, already in the age of scholasticism, the view was established that the form of the sacrament is an exclamation in imperative form, pronounced at ordination: “Assyrrhe Spiritum Sanctum.” Apparently, the Council of Trent was inclined to recognize these words as the final formula of the sacrament (Sees. XXIII, can. 4). But many of the Roman Catholic theologians, in view of the fact that the imperative formula is a later innovation (not earlier than the 13th and even the 14th centuries), recognize the final words of the sacrament of prayer during initiation (Omnipotens Deus, bonorum omnium largitor and others), which, however, are read separately from the laying on of hands, and the laying on of hands takes place only during the proclamation of the imperative formula. But with this view, the form of the sacrament is separated from its matter, and it can no longer be said that the visible side of the sacrament is the laying on of hands combined with prayer. III. The distinction between dogmatic definitions of the priesthood and the canonical ones, strictly observed by the Eastern Church, in the Latin Church is confused and mixed, if not destroyed. The priesthood, by dogmatic definition, as a sacrament, has only three degrees: bishop, presbyter and deacon. The graces of each degree of priesthood are given in equal measure. According to the canonical definition, there are many degrees of the priesthood (for example, in the rank of bishop - simply bishop, metropolitan, exarch and patriarch, in the rank of presbyter - priest, archpriest and protopresbyter, in the diaconal rank - deacon, protodeacon and archdeacon) and each of them is assigned certain church rights and advantages, with complete equality of grace-filled powers of persons having the same degree priesthood. The number of degrees of the priesthood in the dogmatic sense is a divine institution, and therefore is not subject to change, but in the canonical sense it is an ecclesiastical institution, caused by known historical circumstances, and therefore can be changed. Since each degree of the priesthood is given its own measure or fullness of grace, then, for example, a bishop cannot be reduced to the degree of presbyter, a presbyter to the degree of a deacon, or vice versa, a deacon cannot assign to himself the rights of a presbyter, and a presbyter - episcopal, but everyone must remain in the grace-filled rights of his rank. In the Latin Church this distinction between dogmatic and canonical definitions of the priesthood has long been lost and forgotten. The main reason or reason for this is the doctrine of the primacy of the pope. It was necessary to single out the pope from the ranks of his fellow bishops, to elevate and exalt him before them. And it's done. The primacy of the pope is considered in the Roman Church not as an ecclesiastical legal institution, but 1) as a direct establishment of Jesus Christ, 2) as the only and exclusive organ of grace for the entire body of the church and, finally, 3) as one that excludes any concept of his grace-filled equality with the bishops. From this it follows that there are not three grace-filled degrees of priesthood, but at least four. This led to further indifference and confusion of dogmatic and canonical definitions of the priesthood. This was first accomplished in medieval theology, which recognized as degrees of priesthood not only priesthood in the proper sense (bishopric and presbytery) and deaconry, but also included among them such church ministries as the ministry of doorkeepers (ostiarii), readers (lectores), exorcists (exorcistae), priests (acolyti) and subdeacons (subdiaconi), with the assimilation of each of these seven degrees of meaning of the sacrament, which leaves an indelible stamp. In accordance with the view of the essence of the priesthood as the power to celebrate the Eucharist, episcopacy is not considered by the scholastics to be a special degree in the hierarchy, but only a variation of one degree - sacerdotium, the highest and last degree, above which only pontifex maximus, the father of fathers, the Pope of Rome, rises. Bishops, in relation to the Eucharist, do not have higher power than presbyters, and therefore cannot constitute a special hierarchical degree, which is why elevation to bishop is not a sacrament that imparts the highest grace of the priesthood. They exercise greater power in hierarchical actions than presbyters by the permission of the pope, and not by grace-filled powers granted directly from God through a special sacrament (jure humano, and not jure divino). The scholastic teaching about the degrees of the priesthood is also enshrined in the definitions of the Roman church authority. Thus, the Council of Trent counts the same seven degrees of the priesthood as the scholastics (Sess. XXIII, cap. 2). The “Roman Catechism” divides these seven degrees into higher (“priestly, diaconate and subdiaconate”) and lower (“clerics, exorcists, readers and doorkeepers”) and recognizes initiation into each of them as a sacrament that imposes a “spiritual seal” on the initiates (pars II, pp. VII, qu. 12, 21 et 28). Episcopacy, according to the teaching of the Catechism, does not constitute an independent degree, but is included in the priestly degree 68. The perversion and confusion of dogmatic definitions of the priesthood with the canonical ones is allowed by the Roman Church in other respects, as can be seen from its establishment of the rank or dignity of cardinals. Cardinals (according to the state there are 70 of them) are the first advisers of the pope and his direct assistants in the management of the church, having only him as their judge. According to the degrees of the priesthood, they are divided into cardinal deacons, cardinal presbyters and cardinal bishops. But the very title of “cardinal” (from cardo - the main ropes, hooks or hinges on which doors rotate), regardless of degree, gives them all advantages over all ranks of the hierarchy, not excluding even metropolitans and patriarchs. The cardinal rank is considered the highest dignity after the papal rank. During solemn sacred services with the pope, even cardinal deacons have the advantages of primacy and close participation in it over all hierarchs - non-cardinals, including the patriarchs themselves. Every cardinal, just like a bishop, has the right not only to have a home church, but also to officiate anywhere outside his church on a portable altar. Cardinal-presbyters have the episcopal right of ordination (ordination) to the lower ranks of the church, while cardinal deacons can perform the liturgy like presbyters 69. IV. As a feature that distinguishes the Western Church from the Eastern, although of a non-dogmatic nature, one should also point out celibacy (coelibatus), which it imposes, as a general law, on all the clergy, not excluding the lower clergy. In the Eastern Church, according to ancient church rules, those who have chosen a celibate life forever, or those who have previously married, can be elevated to hierarchical ranks. Ordination constitutes an obstacle to marriage (VI Vs. P. 6 and 13 etc.). For the highest degree, episcopal, a celibate life is required. But the Roman Church recognizes the marital state, even if consecrated by the sacrament, as incompatible with the dignity of the holy order and therefore honors ordination only to those who are in a celibate state and who give an obligation to maintain celibacy. The custom of celibacy for clergy was established gradually in the Roman Church, over several centuries and through measures of violence (especially under Pope Gregory VII), with protests from the clergy and laity. Even the Council of Trent demanded permission for marriage for priests. But such demands were found dangerous for the Roman throne and the council approved the celibacy of the clergy as a law, and anathematized those who did not recognize the importance and power of this law (Sess. XXIV, cap. 9). A law that forces celibacy cannot be justified by St. Scripture, nor St. Tradition, nor the purpose with which it was persistently carried out by the papacy. In St. There is no indication in Scripture of mandatory celibacy for the clergy. The Savior spoke of celibacy as an exclusive state, accessible to a few people: not everyone can comprehend this word, but to them it is given to eat (Matthew 19:11-12; cf. 1 Cor. 7:7, 32-33), and the apostle. Paul instructed his disciple to observe only that the one elected to the sacred degrees was the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:5–6), that is, the first-wed. The ancient church not only never demanded compulsory celibacy from clergy, but also strictly forbade them to break off their legal marriage even under the guise of piety (Ap. pr. 5; Ank. 10; Gangrsk. 4 and 9 pr.), and directly condemned the Roman demands of celibacy (VI Ecum. 13 pr.). It is known how at the First Ecumenical Council, when some bishops proposed making celibacy mandatory for all clergy, the famous virgin and strict ascetic Bishop rebelled against this. Paphnutius of Thebaid convinced everyone not to impose on the clergy the yoke of celibacy, which not everyone could bear. The apparent motivation and purpose of legitimizing celibacy was to elevate the clergy in their lifestyle over the lay believers and to make them more selfless and devoted to their service. But, in reality, the prohibition of honest and legal marriage only contributed to the development of the so-called. concubinage and criminal connections in the clergy in general. Therefore, to this day there are demands for the abolition of the obligation of celibacy, especially since Rome allows marriage to Uniate priests. But the papacy does not find it possible to give the same permission to the native Latin clergy, and for reasons that are not religious, moral and canonical. Celibacy, which gives the papacy servants who know neither family-related nor social-state obligations, bound only by obedience to the papacy, is needed as one of the supports, even if rotten, for the preservation of the (external) unity of the Roman Church, which is why the papacy cannot give up this law. § 165. Protestant doctrine of the universal priesthood of Christians. Protestant ordination The doctrine of the universal priesthood of Christians, the transfer of the general right of the priesthood to the elect. Protestant religions - Lutheranism and Reformation - reject the priesthood as a sacrament. Protestantism opposed the general church teaching about the hierarchy and priesthood as a sacrament with the teaching about the universal priesthood of Christians. All believers, as baptized, it teaches, are equal in their rights of grace, all are in direct relation to God, all are directly taught and sanctified by God, and therefore - all are priests and have no need for organs or bearers of grace to convey it to others, do not need either teaching or any other help from another person. God bestows consecration not on one or the other in particular, but on all baptized people in general, and to the same extent - He bestows His inner action on the spirit of man. As a consequence of this inner consecration, every Christian, as a church and organ of the Divinity, has a jure divino right not only to the office of teacher, but also to the celebration of the sacraments; Inner dedication, in addition to empowerment, also gives the ability to do so. Consistently pursuing the idea of ​​a universal priesthood of Christians led to the general denial of the need for officials who would take upon themselves the responsibility of teaching and performing the sacraments. But in connection with the appearance of many fanatical teachers who put into practice the doctrine of the universal priesthood, a member appeared in the “Augsburg Confession”: “no one should teach publicly in the church and perform the sacraments unless he is legally called to do so (rite vocatus).” To avoid disorder, believers must renounce the exercise of their priestly rights and entrust this to one or more persons, according to need (art. XIV. Apol. ad. art. XIV). The transfer of the general right of the priesthood in Protestant societies (among the Lutherans, Reformed, Socinians and other Protestant sects) or ordination (the installation of clergy officials) is accomplished through the laying on of hands, combined with prayer, in which an abundant outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is requested for those chosen to serve the word, i.e. the same visible sign is used as was used by the apostles and is used at all times by the Catholic Church. But its meaning and inner meaning are significantly different from what the Universal Church attaches to this action. Protestant ordination is only one formality, observed in order to avoid the possibility of illegal participation in the service of the word on the part of those not called to it, it is not absolutely obligatory, it is a simple act of induction into office, a simple rite that does not impart to the chosen one the special gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of the priesthood. Therefore, the persons over whom this rite was performed are no different in terms of grace-filled powers from those over whom it was not performed. It is clear from this that in Protestantism no significant differences are allowed between the servants of the word - division into degrees of hierarchy. This also explains the peculiarity of Protestantism regarding who should have the right to perform ordination. The Church grants this right exclusively to the bishop, bearing in mind the words of the Savior: you have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16), and the words of the Apostle: he who is blessed is greatly blessed (Heb. 7:7). But in Protestantism the right to perform ordination is given to every pastor, every clergyman and even a simple layman, for there is no significant difference, except for the difference in name, between the clergy and the non-clergy. True, in most Protestant societies this right is granted to holders of church office and mainly to the highest (super-intendents in Germany, bishops in Denmark, Sweden), but this is done only for the sake of order, for decency (jure humano). These very highest positions constitute the actual state institution and do not, as spiritual positions, have any advantage over all others, and therefore the pastor who assumes the highest position - super-intendency (bishopric) does not need a new consecration. It is not difficult to see that the inner source of the Protestant denial of the doctrine of the priesthood as a sacrament and the idea of ​​a universal priesthood of Christians have in the general principles of Protestantism. In connection with these principles, all this teaching stands or falls. In particular, with regard to the doctrine of the universal priesthood of Christians, the church has never known a universal priesthood in the sense in which it is understood by Protestantism. True, St. Scripture speaks of a universal priesthood in a certain sense. It was also said to Israel, singled out by God from among all other nations, taken as God’s inheritance (Exodus 19:5; 23, 22): you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6; 23, 22). And in the New Testament St. Peter convinces Christians: you yourself, as a living treasure, are built and occupied in a spiritual church, a holy priesthood (ίεράτεύμα άγιον), offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God Jesus Christ... You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood (βασίλειον ίεράτεύμα), the tongue is holy, people are renewed (1 Pet 2, 5, 9). The Apocalypse says: He (I. Christ) created us kings and priests (ίερείς) to His God and Father (1:6; sn. 20:6). But just as in the Old Testament, despite the fact that all of Israel was a kingdom of priests, there was a hierarchy established by God, so in the New Testament church, the universality of the priesthood in the sense of the apostolic teaching about it does not exclude the divine institution of a special hierarchy and priesthood, which has a special gift of grace for serving. Calling Christians the holy priesthood and priests of God, Scripture nowhere says that all Christians were entrusted and given the divine right to teach, perform the sacraments and govern; on the contrary, it teaches that Jesus Christ appointed some as apostles, others as prophets, and others as shepherds and teachers (Eph. 2:27–29; cf. Eph. 4:11), and therefore not all are apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers, not all shepherds (1 Cor. 12:22–24, 27). Those who believe in Christ are called the priesthood because all of them, as born of water and the Spirit, have the boldness to perform sacred acts before God, each for himself, in the church of his body, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 6:19), spiritually offering Him our bodies as a living sacrifice and acceptable prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings, a contrite spirit, a contrite and humble heart, and other virtues (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 6:18; Heb. 13, 15-16). In the same sense, the apostles call Christians, as having the anointing of the Holy One, kings. And just as it is not permissible to infer from calling them kings that they are all kings in the political sense, so it is also impermissible to see in the idea of ​​the universality of the priesthood the assimilation of hierarchical rights and powers to each member of the church. § 166. Question about the validity of the Anglican and Old Catholic hierarchy I. England, breaking in the 16th century. its centuries-old union with Rome, formed in its church, independent of Rome, a hierarchy independent of the papacy, consisting of bishops, presbyters and deacons. The preservation of a hierarchical structure is one of the characteristic features of Anglicanism in comparison with all other branches of Protestantism, as a result of which this church is also called Episcopal. Ordination to hierarchical degrees in the Church of England is carried out by a bishop through ordination combined with prayer. But is the Anglican hierarchy a real hierarchy, possessing all the grace-filled gifts of the true hierarchy? From the very first time of the existence of the Anglican hierarchy, independent of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize the validity of Anglican ordination on dogmatic and canonical grounds, and its members, in the event of conversion to Catholicism, considered it necessary to ordain again to the degree of priesthood, starting with the lowest. And more recently, Pope Leo XIII ex cathedra (in the bull “Apostolicae curae” of 1896). 13 September) declared that “the ordinations given according to the Anglican rite were and are completely invalid and completely insignificant.” 70. The Orthodox Church had no reason to express its judgment about the Anglican hierarchy in the form of a special conciliar resolution or determinations of the bodies of the highest spiritual authority in the autocephalous churches of the East. But even from the Orthodox point of view, there are grounds for doubts and even outright denial of the validity of the Anglican initiations - the foundations are partly dogmatic, partly historical and canonical in nature. It is indisputable that where the priesthood itself is not recognized as a sacrament, ordinations do not have the grace-filled power of a sacrament. Meanwhile, in Anglican beliefs there is no positively and clearly expressed doctrine of the priesthood as a sacrament; on the contrary, they say. that the priesthood “should not consider the gospel a sacrament” (XXV ch.). But if the priesthood, as a sacrament, does not exist, then, from the point of view of the Anglican religious system, grace is not imparted to the ordained persons in ordination, and, therefore, ordination has only the meaning that through it external powers are given for church service. Hence, hierarchical ministry is a ministry similar to other ministries in human activity, but not a divine institution (jure divino), essential in the church, but a “allowed state.” There is no teaching in the Anglican creeds about the divine establishment of the hierarchy (in general and all three degrees in particular) and the priesthood in the ancient church sense, as well as about the unconditional necessity of episcopal consecration, nor in the rite of consecrations 71 . The hierarchy is valid under the condition of continuous successive connection with the apostolic hierarchy through legitimate episcopal ordination. But it is difficult to recognize the Anglican hierarchy from the point of view of the ancient church canons as preserving this continuity. The founder of the modern Anglican hierarchy is Matthew Parker, who was elevated before all other bishops to the see of Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth. But those Catholic bishops whose legality and full rights to perform it were undoubted refused to perform Parker’s consecration, and his ordination (December 17, 1559 according to the order of Edward) was carried out by such “bishops” whose rights to perform a valid consecration were doubtful. Of these, three (W. Barlow, J. Scory and M. Coverdal) were bishops deposed from their sees during the reign of Mary the Catholic in the name of the authority of the Roman bishop; Episcopal powers were returned to them and new sees were assigned by royal authority under the gift of Elizabeth. The fourth of Parker's ordainers (J. Godgkins) was only a vicar (suffragan), i.e., according to the canons, he did not have the right to act independently as a bishop, especially when performing ordination to sacred degrees (Antioch. Sob. 10 rights), especially when consecrating as a bishop-primate; such authority was given to him, like the first three ordainers, by secular authority. The modern Anglican hierarchy, therefore, has its source in secular power, the power of “secular superiors.” It is difficult to reconcile this method of restoring the ancient order of church government with the legalizations of the ancient universal church (30 Apostles; I Vs. 4 and 6 Ave; VII Vs. 3 Ave; Antioch. 19 Ave.; Carth. 13 Ave.). In addition, about the main ordainer, W. Barlow, there is no record at all of his consecration as a bishop in the acts of the Canterbury See. Finally, doubts about the reality of the hierarchy in England are also raised by the religious characteristics of Anglicanism. Since its separation from the Roman Church, the Anglican Church has admitted a number of Protestant errors in its doctrine. In particular, not recognizing the sevenfold number of sacraments, it does not recognize, in addition to the priesthood, anointing as a divinely established sacrament. It follows from this that the bishops themselves, not accepting confirmation as a sacrament in the proper sense, do not have those gifts of the Holy Spirit, which in the Orthodox Church are considered necessary even for every layman. Could this be conducive to recognizing their actual possession of blessed hierarchical powers? The ancient Church did not recognize the priesthood as valid in those societies whose members were not recognized as having been correctly awarded the grace-filled gifts of Confirmation, and therefore those who were accepted into communion with it through Confirmation did not retain hierarchical degrees. Of course, the final verdict on the question of the validity of the Anglican hierarchy can only be pronounced by the entire Ecumenical Church, by its conciliar determination or by the consent of its main representatives. But there is no sufficient reason to hope that it will be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church 72 . It should be noted that among the ministers of the Anglican Church itself there are many people who doubt the validity of their priesthood and come to the realization that the path for the Anglican Church to restore its true hierarchy is to take advantage of the wise instruction of St. Philaret: “if it is impossible to resolve the doubt whether the consecration of a bishop has actually taken place, make the consecration as a bishop conditionally, if he is not consecrated.” The hierarchy of the American Episcopal Church also originates from the Anglican Episcopal Church. It is clear, therefore, that the judgment about the Anglican hierarchy also applies to the hierarchy of the American Episcopal Church. II. The proclamation by the Roman Church of the dogma of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome ex cathedra caused the separation from it of part of Western Christians, who formed the so-called. Old Catholicism. Recognizing the divine establishment of the church hierarchy and the priesthood as a true sacrament, Old Catholics in their societies also have a special hierarchy headed by bishops. They elected Prof. Jos. Lip. Reikens. His consecration as bishop of the German Old Catholics was carried out according to the R. Catholic rite with minor changes. The consecration was performed (1873, August 11) by Utrecht Archbishop Herman Heykamp with the complicity of two vicar generals from the Dutch infulates (like our archimandrites). Reinkens consecrated another bishop for the Swiss Old Catholics, Prof. Ed. Duke (September 18, 1876), also according to the Catholic rank. From these bishops the hierarchy of European Old Catholics continues to the present day, but its beginning dates back to individual initiation. The hierarchy of the Utrecht Church also originates from individual consecration: the first Archbishop of Utrecht, Steenoven, received his consecration (in 1724) from Dominic Maria-Varle, Bishop of Babylon (in partibus). Is this hierarchy legal and valid? The Roman Catholic Church considers the Old Catholic hierarchy (like the Utrecht hierarchy) illegal and invalid. But from the Orthodox point of view, it cannot be recognized as canonically correct. The St. Petersburg Commission on the Old Catholic Question also came to this conclusion. In her opinion, the Utrecht, like the Old Catholic hierarchy, cannot be considered canonically correct for the following reasons: firstly, because the founder of the Utrecht hierarchy, Dominic Maria Varle, the former Babylonian bishop in partibus, ordained Steenowen, from whom the Utrecht, and, consequently, the Old Catholic hierarchy, originates, alone, without the presence of other bishops; secondly, because he ordained in a region beyond his control, as the bishop of Babylon; thirdly, because he ordained without papal permission, in the absence of which, according to the then Roman Catholic law, he could not do this, and, finally, fourthly, because he ordained (Oct. 15. 1724), being in a state of prohibition, which was imposed on him (back on March 15, 1720), among other things, for what he committed (in 1719), without permission, up to 640 confirmations over the Utrecht schismatics (Church Veda. 1896, No. 38). The dedication of Reinkens and Herzog was also personal. Meanwhile, according to the exact meaning of the church canons, the matter of electing and consecrating a bishop is the action of an entire episcopal council: “to appoint a bishop is most appropriate for all the bishops of that region” (I All. Sob. 4 pr.; Sn. Carth. sob. 13 pr.), and the performance of the consecration itself, as a sacred rite, is the action of two or three bishops; “let two or three bishops appoint (έπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω) bishops” of this cathedral (1st Apostle Ave.; sn. Carth. Sob. 60 Ave.). One or another solution to the question of the orthodoxy of the Utrecht Church, from which the hierarchy of Old Catholics originates, is also important for judging the reality of the hierarchy of European Old Catholics. In the Catholic world, the prevailing opinion is that the Utrecht Church is infected with the heretical views of Jansen and is a schismatic church, which is why it was excommunicated by the popes from church communion (in the 18th century). The accusation of heresy against the Dutch Church, leveled against it by the Jesuits, is difficult to accept as proven. However, while continuing to be out of communion with the Roman Church, whose hierarchy the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid, and being out of communion with the Orthodox Eastern Church, has not the Utrecht Church lost the hierarchical current of grace that is preserved and transmitted in the Catholic Church through the continuous succession of the legitimate hierarchy? Isn’t what St. says applicable to the Utrecht, and, consequently, to the Old Catholic hierarchy? Vasily V. about the extinction of grace in societies that have separated from the church? Given the full orthodoxy of the Utrecht Church, a long-term separation from the Catholic Church should not, and indeed could it, take place? But, it goes without saying, from the Orthodox point of view, the final decision on the issue regarding the consecration of the Utrecht, and, consequently, the Old Catholic hierarchy, can only belong to the voice of the church itself. St. Irenaeus says that St. Paul called to Miletus “the bishops and elders of Ephesus and other nearby cities” (Prot. heresy III, 14). And St. Irenaeus could know for sure either from Polycarp, bishop. Smyrna, or from any of the shepherds called to Miletus, whom exactly the ap called there. Paul. “Although the priestly degree (ordo sacerdotalis) is one, says the Catechism, it has different degrees of dignity and power. The first stage is those who are simply called priests. The second level is of bishops placed over individual bishoprics. The third level is archbishops, who are placed above several bishops and are also called metropolitans. On the fourth step are the patriarchs. Above them, the Catholic Church has always revered the Roman Pontiff." Pars II, p. VII, qu. 24. It is also impossible not to note the special custom of the Western Church, according to which, during solemn services, the duties of deacons and subdeacons are often performed by priests, only in deaconal and subdeaconal vestments. The question of the validity of the Anglican hierarchy was the subject of special discussion among the Old Catholics. The Dutch Old Catholic Commission decided this issue, like the Roman Church, not in favor of the validity of this hierarchy. In the XIIIth part. faith it is said: “no one is allowed to preach publicly or perform the sacraments in the church unless he is lawfully called and sent (fn. Conf. aug. art. XIV). And those who are elected and appointed for this work by people who have received from the church the authority to elect and send to the helicity of the Lord should be considered legally called and sent.” Sn. Vasily V. To Amphil. 1 canon. last About the extinction of grace in societies that have separated from the church. You might be interested in: