The meaning of apostolic succession in heterodoxy

I. The authority of our modern church hierarchy, its rights and powers precisely as a hierarchy established by God, rest on the historical fact of its succession from the Apostles. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church at the present time, such was its teaching in ancient times, during the period of the “indivisible” Church, as is commonly expressed in the theological literature of the West. It is not surprising, therefore, that heterodox societies that have separated from the Church, and do not want to break with their church past (as Protestants do), preserve this teaching and greatly value the apostolic succession of their hierarchy, if they can prove it. The question of apostolic succession inevitably arises in any attempt to reunite heterodox societies with the Orthodox Church or, as they like to put the matter again in the West, when judging the rights of one or another self-emergent “Church” (Old Catholicism and the like) to be recognized as an integral part of the Universal Church. There is a whole theological literature about the Anglican hierarchy, for example, and both opponents of the recognition of this hierarchy and its defenders equally proceed from the question of apostolic succession: the former deny this succession in the said hierarchy, and the latter prove it. The question is, how does the Orthodox Church view the apostolic succession of the hierarchy preserved among the non-Orthodox? Does this circumstance have any interest in her eyes other than historical? In other words, does the presence of succession significantly influence the judgment of our Church about a given heterodox society, and in particular about its priesthood? There is an opinion that answers the question posed with a resounding no. The Church of Christ, say supporters of this opinion, recognizes itself as the only treasury of saving grace on earth (“I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”). Only she has a truly apostolic hierarchy that distributes saving Sacraments. Heterodox societies that have separated from the Church, no matter how different they may be from each other, both those who supposedly have an apostolic hierarchy, and those who do not have it, and those who want to have a priesthood, and those who do not recognize the priesthood at all - they all merge for the Church into one common, homogeneous mass of Christians deprived of grace only due to inaccurate usage of words. True, in the Church there are three rites of reception for those who come to it from heterodoxy: it accepts some as pagans through baptism, others through confirmation, and still others through repentance, and in the latter case clergy are received in their existing rank. But these three rites in no way imply any three categories in heterodoxy - so that for some the Church does not recognize any Sacraments, for others it considers baptism valid, and for still others not only baptism, but also confirmation and even priesthood, and with its corresponding rites it makes up for everyone what is lacking. Applying a more strict rite to one heterodox society, and to another, or even to the same thing, but at another time, a more lenient rite, the Church is guided exclusively by practical considerations, considerations of church economy: by its desire and duty to contribute to the salvation of the greatest number of people. Anyone who comes, essentially, should be baptized and anointed with the Holy Myrrh, and then, if he is worthy of being accepted into the clergy, he should be honored with Orthodox ordination. But, sparing the natural feelings of people who are accustomed to consider themselves already baptized and even ministers of the Church, the Church does not repeat either baptism or ordination on them, but limits itself only to the third rite, in which, through the Sacrament of Confession, implicite (without revealing this in any way) it teaches baptism, anointing, and ordination to the recipient. Once shown, leniency does not oblige the Church to adhere to the same order in the future. Under changing circumstances, the reception also changes. The correctness of the stated opinion is proven, they say, not only by its fidelity to dogma, but also by the endless diversity and especially the extreme variability of church practice in relation to non-Orthodox people. For example, the Russian Church first accepted Catholics in the third rank and in their existing rank, then began to rebaptize them, and then again returned to the previous practice, which it continues to this day. The Greek Church, on the contrary, previously accepted Catholics like us, and from the 18th century began to rebaptize. And at the same time, the Greek Church not only does not reproach our Church for such leniency, but is itself ready to make, on occasion, taking into account various circumstances, an exception to its strict rule. With the recognition of Anglican ordination, the Greek Church would logically have to soften, and perhaps has now already softened, its practice in relation to Catholics. The same instability is revealed by the practice of the ancient Church in relation to various societies (for example, the Donatists and others). It would be in vain to look for any system in this diversity and to look for dogmatic grounds for the actions of the Church. There is no system here, and no dogmatic grounds force the Church to use the second or third instead of the first rite. The Church here can act completely freely, choosing at its own discretion what in a given situation and at a given time is most useful from its point of view. The stated opinion captivates with its dogmatic straightforwardness and the fact that it immediately eliminates all bewilderments and ambiguities of heterodox people. It is enough for a non-Orthodox to come to the church vineyard - and no matter what he comes with, the Church will already reward him along with her faithful sons. Thus, the late Archbishop Hilarion answered the Anglican professor: “Stop tormenting yourself with the question of whether you have the priesthood or not. Go directly to the Church. She will accept you without any humiliation, without rebaptism, without reordination, and from her fullness she will immediately give you existence in the bowels of the Universal Church of Christ, and a grace-filled priesthood, and everything.” We do not, however, have a Catholic principle by which dogma determines history. We Orthodox Christians cannot turn a blind eye to the latter’s testimony. Seeing the disagreement of history with dogma, we must first of all ask ourselves whether we understand church dogma correctly. In the present case, the evidence of history is not in favor of this understanding. The practice of the Church towards non-Orthodox people is indeed extremely varied and unstable. The importance of church economy in the matter of accepting non-Orthodox people is always very great. Despite all this, there is a sharply drawn line that the Church never crosses in its practice. This feature is the absence in this heterodox society of correct episcopal consecration, which was successively preserved from the Apostles (of course, together with the Apostolic teaching on the priesthood). No matter how strong the arguments of church economy, the Church will never accept members of such a society into its bosom in the third order (without confirmation), much less introduce them into its clergy without Orthodox ordination. For example, a Lutheran pastor, a Scottish presbyter, a Pomeranian mentor and the like may be people who are fully worthy of being accepted into the Orthodox clergy, and yet will never be recognized as priests without Orthodox ordination, and will not receive the implicite and grace of the priesthood in the Sacrament of Repentance (in the third rite). This means that the presence of apostolic succession noticeably distinguishes a certain group of heterodox societies from their entire mass. The Church accepts only those who have maintained continuity into its clergy without ordination. Does she recognize such ordinations as grace-filled? Defenders of the opinion under discussion explain the matter differently. The Church, they say, is extremely valuable to the apostolic heritage in general, and in this case does not want to violate the external forms preserved from the Apostles, although these forms outside the Church have already become empty and have lost the apostolic grace-filled content. The facts of church practice again do not present church teaching in such a light. For example, our existing rule for accepting Catholic priests into the existing rank extends to the point that if such a priest, for example, out of a desire to get married, does not want to be accepted into the existing rank, then after being accepted into the fold of the Orthodox Church he should be considered not just a layman, but precisely one who has withdrawn the rank and therefore no longer has any hope of receiving Orthodox ordination. It is difficult to accept that, out of respect for one already empty form, the Church would so irrevocably deprive a worthy person of the hope of being an Orthodox cleric, especially since the marriage state for a cleric is permitted by its rules. If they say that in this case the Church punishes moral instability, undesirable in the clergy, the refusal of the cross that has already been taken upon oneself, why then does the Church leave the Lutheran pastor, the Pomeranian mentor and the like unpunished, when, when converting to Orthodoxy, they also do not want to immediately join the Orthodox clergy, and then they will look for it? The Church understands by apostolic succession undoubtedly not just the external, mechanical transmission of the act of ordination itself, but also the faith connected with this act, that is, the preservation in a given society of the apostolic teaching on the grace of the priesthood. This again does not fit well with the opinion being analyzed. To accept an empty, graceless form and at the same time believe, according to the apostolic teaching, that you are receiving Divine grace, and at the same time experience the corresponding states and thoughts - after all, this would be self-deception or, in spiritual language, delusion. Charms are not indulged, but on the contrary, they fight against it with all available means. Meanwhile, here the Church seems to be deliberately trying in every possible way to leave a person in his delusion, as if she is afraid to shake a person’s false conviction that in heterodox ordination he received real grace. Without even talking about the need for Orthodox ordination, the Church even comes up with a special rite reception in order to, in the Sacrament of Confession, impart implicitly to the recipient the grace of the priesthood. Therefore, it is closer to the truth and to church teaching to assume that there, in heterodoxy, where apostolic succession has been preserved, that is, both the apostolic form of ordination and the apostolic teaching on the grace of the priesthood, there ordinations, according to the thought of the Church, are not only a graceless form and therefore are not repeated when such clerics are introduced into the Orthodox clergy. It is more correct to understand church teaching this way than to come up with some unprecedented teaching of the Sacraments implicite, about which not only cannot be found traces either in the church rules or in patristic teaching, but on the contrary, there is evidence against it. We agree that this ingenious invention greatly simplifies pastoral and missionary practice, cutting through all confusion. For example, a person considered himself Orthodox, began to receive communion, and then it was revealed that he had not been baptized. What should I do? Answer: since he received communion, it means he has all the fullness of grace and does not need baptism. Or: when converting entire parishes from Renovationism, what should we do with infants anointed in Renovationism? Answer: at the very first Liturgy, give them all communion, and that’s the end of the matter. But such advisers, according to the proverb, when they throw the water out of the font, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Wanting to avoid unnecessary noise and embarrassment, inevitable when performing the Sacrament over those who considered themselves or who were considered by others to have already received the Sacrament, the advisers decide at random and leave open for any doubt an immeasurably more important question: do the Church Sacraments benefit those who have not yet entered the Church in the established way? Isn't this food for the dead? At least, in the 1st canon of St. Timothy of Alexandria it is indicated: not only should a catechumen who has received communion by mistake not be released from baptism, as if he had already received everything without baptism, but, on the contrary, baptize him (without waiting for the deadline for the catechumen). And in general, church rules are completely against decisions “at random” in such important cases when the grace-filled rebirth and sanctification of at least one person is in question. According to the 83rd rule of the Council of Carthage, if it is unknown whether the baby has been baptized, one should not carry him to communion, complacently reassuring himself with the thought that he will receive everything in communion. The rule decisively prescribes “to baptize without any doubt” for fear of “not depriving them (babies) of the purification of this shrine,” not daring to baptize them (obviously, for fear of repeating the Sacrament). This matter was considered so important that the Trullo Council (VI Ecumenical Council, 84) found it necessary to repeat the Carthaginian rule for ecumenical practice. Thus, the Church in its rules prefers to risk the repetition of a unique Sacrament (Holy Apostles, 47) than to teach the possibility of teaching this Sacrament implicite. Meanwhile, the case for such a teaching seemed to be the most suitable. One can be sure that if there was a doubt about the validity of the heterodox Sacraments, the Church of Christ would express this doubt with all sincerity, directly indicating the necessary Sacraments to be repeated, and would not hide its doubts, much less its confidence in the invalidity of the Sacraments, under the teaching of them implicite. I think (as I suggested in my article in Nos. 2–4 of our magazine for 1931 1), much in the Church’s relationship to heterodoxy will become clearer for us if we do not lose sight of the fact that heterodoxy is not conceived by the Church as something independent and completely alien to it, like heterodoxy; that the heterodox, in essence, are a category of fallen or repentant: the fallen are excommunicated from communion in the Sacraments, and some from prayers, but they are still in the Church and under its influence. The heterodox are, of course, more alienated from the Church than the fallen: they not only sin, but also do not recognize the Church and fight against it. However, the attitude of the Church towards them remains the same as towards the fallen in general. It is certainly condemning, “abhorring clothing defiled by the flesh” (Jude 23), but is by no means malicious or hostile, “saving through fear.” The Church “hands over the non-Orthodox to Satan,” but for the sole purpose: “that the spirit may be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5). In other words, the attitude of the Church to heterodoxy is only one of the aspects of the activity of the church court, understood in the broad sense of corrective influence on the fallen. Naturally, this attitude reflects the general features of the court’s activities. For us in the present case, it is important to note the general negative feature that characterizes the church court, that while it has the authority, when it sees reason, to take away (permanently or temporarily) what was received in the Sacraments, by its own judgment it cannot give what can only be received in the Sacraments: the court cannot recognize an unbaptized person as baptized, a layman as a priest, and the like. This is exactly what is done in relation to non-Orthodox people: those of them whom the Church does not find correct baptism, it does not accept without baptism; She does not introduce those who do not have the correct priesthood into the clergy without her ordination, and vice versa. II. If the Orthodox Church accepts non-Orthodox clergy in their existing rank because it recognizes their priesthood as valid, then how can one reconcile with this recognition the historical fact of changes in the Church’s relations with societies that have such a priesthood, for example, with Catholics? We must not forget that the Church treats her own consecrations, performed in its depths, not without reason. There are a number of Orthodox ordinations that have been declared invalid. For example, Maxim Kinik himself was Orthodox, and even outstanding, and received consecration from Orthodox and correctly appointed bishops, however, “both what was done for him and what he did was all insignificant” (II Ecumenical Council, 4). This also includes all those rules that declare invalid Orthodox ordinations performed with a significant deviation from the rules, for example, without the will of the metropolitan of the region (I Ecumenical Council, 6), or by a bishop in a foreign diocese (Holy Apostles, 14), or over a foreign clergyman (I Ecumenical Council, 16; Sardician, 15; Carthage, 91, and similar). At the same time, the practice established by such rules, in turn, turns out to be not unchanged. History constantly repeats cases of exceptions to the rules. This is because the rules of the Church are not dogmatic definitions about objects of faith, which solve the issue once and for all, and do not operate automatically. They are taught primarily to the leadership of the ecclesiastical court, and, therefore, every case of their application presupposes a special decision of this court. In particular, noting the invalidity of ordinations under certain conditions, the rules speak only of the right of the church court to recognize these ordinations as invalid. This means that, if necessary, taking into account the circumstances of the case or simply for reasons of church economics, the court can stop its punishing sword and leave this ordination in force. There are known cases in the history of the Church when Orthodox bishops, forced to do so by extraordinary circumstances or extreme abuses, carried out justice and reprisals outside their region, deposed some bishops and clergy, and installed others. However, in the church consciousness such statements found justification and remained in force (for example, the actions of St. John Chrysostom and others). However, by making such exceptions from the rules, the Church never creates a precedent for the future and does not give anyone the right to justify violations of the rules by reference to this precedent. Church oikonomia does not cancel or even weaken the power of the canon. It has in mind only this particular case with its individual, unique nature and limits its action to it. For everyone, the canon remains binding, according to the severity of which the church court can punish the guilty person if it is not motivated to apply the principle of oikonomia. The Church’s relations with heterodox societies are structured approximately according to the same scheme. The only significant difference is that in the field of court the Church has to deal with individual violators of church rules, but here with entire groups of such violators, more or less organized, each united by some special deviation. A judgment about an individual representative of a group here inevitably depends on a preliminary judgment about the group. As the only bearer on earth of the power to bind and decide and the only treasury of saving grace, the Church of Christ has the opportunity and right to declare invalid all extra-church ordinations. However, guided by the arguments of church economy and the desire to contribute to the salvation of the greatest number of people, it does not always and not everywhere exercise this right. The Church leaves in force the ordinations of heterodox societies, in which both the apostolic teaching on ordination and the apostolic form have been preserved; it somehow recognizes them as valid, because it draws the proper conclusions from such recognition, for example, it does not repeat not only the baptisms, but also the anointings performed by such clergy. With all this, the failure of the Church to exercise its fundamental right in relation to a certain group of heterodox societies does not at all mean that the Church forever renounces this right. When the circumstances of church life change and the described leniency towards a given heterodox society no longer contributes to the salvation of the greatest number of people, especially when it begins to directly hinder it, the Church returns to its fundamental right and cancels the dispensation 2, again binding what is permitted. This explains the apparent unsystematicity and variability of the Church’s attitude towards heterodox societies. The Old Catholic hierarchy and the Belokrinitsky hierarchy equally originate from individual consecration. The Belokrinitsky hierarchy is unconditionally rejected by the Orthodox Church: all its actions are declared invalid, and we accept those who come from there through chrismation. The Old Catholic hierarchy is also not recognized by our Church. How things stand with it in the Greek East is still unknown. But the attitude of the leading church circles towards Old Catholicism (at least before) was the most sympathetic both here and in the East. In particular, individual consecration was not an absolute obstacle to the recognition of the Old Catholic hierarchy. In justification, they referred to the fact that single consecration (a bishop in the concelebration of two specially authorized abbots) is allowed by the law of the Western Church. Probably, this retreat was established because there the episcopal degree, suppressed by the overly developed authority of the pope, somehow differs little from the presbytery. Be that as it may, but if the Old Catholics had really assimilated the teaching of the ancient, undivided Church about itself, and had not fallen into teaching, research and debate about the details of teaching and ritual, and even if their leaders had imitated the Protestants less, it is very possible that the Old Catholics would have already been accepted into communion with recognition of their hierarchy. There is much in common in the origins of Anglicanism and our Renovationism. Both here and there the beginning was made by a break with their Patriarch and the legal hierarchy united under him (as far as one can speak of the Catholic hierarchy). Both here and there, the authorized diocesan bishops avoided performing the first episcopal consecration. Both here and there, the first consecration was performed by some random bishops, partly vicars, partly completely reposed, all of whose powers were limited, it seems, by the fact that the legitimate church authority had not yet managed to impose a ban on them. The Anglican hierarchy has not received pan-church recognition in the Orthodox Church. However, if the notorious “rapprochement of the Anglican Church with the Orthodox” went its normal, churchly way; if the Anglicans, as a society, were truly passionate about the search for the true Church and the grace-filled priesthood; If their quests had not at times been confused by the idea of ​​achieving, first of all, recognition of their hierarchy (which at one time was so rudely condemned by the Pope), in order to calmly remain with everything that was theirs, then the reunification of the Anglicans with the Orthodox Church could very well have taken place and the question of hierarchy would probably have been resolved in a positive sense. On the contrary, our Church condemned renovationism to the fullest extent of the rules, although not without gradualness. Having declared Renovationism a schism, His Holiness the Patriarch with a council of newly-ordained bishops, by virtue of the current church rules (see above), could immediately issue a decree on defrocking or at least banning all disobedient bishops and clergy, which would establish the reception of Renovationists back into the Church in the second order (through anointing). But the Patriarch in 1923 exercised this right partially, only in relation to ordinations, which, in addition to arbitrariness, had other canonical defects. The Patriarch declared invalid both the episcopacy of married bishops and the consecrations performed by the latter, as well as the ordination to sacred degrees of second-weds or those married to a widow, and the like. And only on April 2, 1924, a ban was imposed on the leaders of renovationism (and therefore on everyone in communication with them). From this day forward, we recognize Renovationist consecrations and other Sacraments, including Chrismation, as invalid, even if during its celebration the old Holy Chrism, that is, taken from the Church, was also used. This is because the Holy Chrism is not some kind of self-acting substance with which whoever anoints it will carry out the “Sacrament.” According to the teaching of the Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is performed by the bishop himself and only by his delegation by the presbyter (which means it is not prohibited). Anointing performed, for example, by a deacon or a layman, will not be a Sacrament. This uneven attitude towards phenomena that seem to be of equal value is explained precisely by considerations of church benefit, pastoral and practical. Old Catholicism and Anglicanism broke away from Rome when it itself was a schism. Their deposition was, in essence, a way out of the schism, although it had not yet been crowned with reunification with the Church. They should not be reproached for the postponement, but rather for the fact that they did not postpone it for so long. Moreover, by their withdrawal, they, of course, weakened the Roman schism and thereby partially strengthened the position of the Orthodox Church. It is natural for them to look at our Church as an ally and have interest and sympathy for it, and for our Church to place the hope that leniency towards them will serve to save the greatest number of people. On the contrary, the Belokrinitsky and Renovationist hierarchies arose with the direct task of strengthening the schism in its intransigence towards the Church, drowning out the attraction of believing souls to the true priesthood with a counterfeit of it, a surrogate, and thereby pushing aside the Orthodox hierarchy and taking its place ourselves. The task of such societies is not the creation, but the disorder of the church body. That is why, applying the order of church oikonomia to the first two societies, in relation to the second the Church sees no reason to deviate from the acrivia of the canons, at least until the position of these two and similar schisms changes for the better. By the way, are we not violating the 68th rule of the Holy Apostles by re-ordaining clergy who come to us from some schismatic societies? The rule, they say, allows reordination only after consecration received from a heretic, but here they are not heretics, but schismatics. But, firstly, you need to know that the word “heretic” in the language of the canons has two meanings: broad (corresponding to the letter of the word “heretic”), meaning anyone who has separated from the Church, and special, meaning someone who has separated from the Church because of faith. Secondly, heretical ordinations are repeated precisely because they are invalid (“it is impossible for those ordained by such... to be ministers of the church”), that is, they do not give anything. But, as can be seen from the church rules given above, any incorrect consecration, especially a schismatic one, can be declared invalid. The difference in the consequences of annulment of a correct and incorrect consecration is very significant. Anyone who has received correct consecration can only be “defrocked,” that is, something real that he had is taken away from him. At the same time, he is deprived not only of the degree to which he was, but in general of all priesthood; so, for example, a bishop who has been deprived of his episcopal rank cannot remain a presbyter (see: IV Ecumenical Council, 29). One who has been defrocked cannot be ordained again. On the contrary, an incorrect consecration is recognized as invalid, as if it had never happened at all, and the one who received it can remain in his former rank, which he was in at the time of this consecration, unless, of course, for accepting an illegal consecration he is not punished by deprivation of his previous rank in accordance with the 35th Apostolic Canon. For example, according to the research of the Most Reverend Bishop Lollius of Yuryevsky (see Chapter VII: Alexandria and Egypt. Collufian movement), the Alexandrian presbyter Colluf, among others, received illegal episcopal consecration from Melitus (Melitian schism under Bishop Alexander, predecessor of St. Athanasius of Alexandria). After the Melitian consecrations were declared invalid, “Collufus died a presbyter” (the words of St. Athanasius), which would not have happened if he had been “deprived” of the episcopal rank. While remaining a presbyter, he undoubtedly retained for himself, if not the moral, then the formal right to be a candidate for bishop. The possibility of a second (in fact, it will be the first) consecration after the first one has been declared invalid, therefore, cannot be disputed. So, contrary to the above-stated absolutely negative opinion about heterodox ordinations, it is more correct to think that the Church does not repeat heterodox ordinations (when it sees apostolic succession in a given society) not because it only valued the apostolic forms, but because it considers such ordinations valid. However, this does not at all mean that there can be grace-filled Sacraments outside the Church: the Church recognizes grace among non-Orthodox people only because it considers them to be “not alien” to the Church; (Basily the Great, rule 1) and as long as they remain so. By maintaining “a certain rule of communication” with them (although both Eucharistic and prayerful communication have been officially broken with them), the Church gives them the opportunity to somehow benefit from the grains of grace from the abundant meal with which it feeds its faithful children. There is no other, non-church grace, and therefore the Church, which has the power to bind and decide, can continue this “certain rule of communication” with the non-Orthodox, when this is in accordance with its own views (salvation of people), and stop communication, so to speak, interrupt the flow of grace, and thereby turn this society into a graceless state, which, in essence, all non-church people should be. On the other hand, Local Orthodox Churches, separated by space and each operating in its own setting, may not commit such an act of alienating a heterodox society (for example, Catholics) at the same time, or one will do it, while the others will remain with the same attitude. Hence the diversity in interchurch practice. But this phenomenon is only temporary, transitory, until a uniform universal practice prevails. III. In contrast to the extreme denial of any significance behind apostolic succession in heterodoxy, others, mainly heterodox themselves, exaggerate, and also to the extreme, this significance. They represent apostolic successive ordination as a certain thing in itself, capable of existing outside and apart from the Church, even against its wishes. Such an exaggerated assessment of apostolic succession is characteristic primarily of the Catholic West in accordance with the general nature of its religious views, in particular with the Catholic unspiritual concept of the grace of God. The main divergence between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on this point of teaching was very clearly revealed in the well-known disputes between the Palamites and the Barlaamites. The Palamites (Orthodox) understood energy (the influence of God on creation, and on man in particular) precisely as a direct, so to speak personal, action of God. Therefore, they directly called energy God. Meanwhile, the Barlaamites (Westerners), based on the idea of ​​​​the incomprehensibility of the Divine, saw in energy the phenomenon of the created world and attributed to it a created existence separate from God. Applying this basic principle to the doctrine of the Sacraments, we obtain: grace is the energy of God. To say: “grace is taught in the Sacraments” means for the Orthodox: “God influences man in the Sacraments.” Hence the extreme difficulty of formulating Orthodox teaching with exhaustive precision. And the form for the Sacrament is necessary, and it is impossible to connect the free creative action of God with a known symbol or material sign and thus, so to speak, place it at the disposal of the performer of the symbol. For the Orthodox, form no longer becomes a conductor of grace, but rather a sign or evidence that God’s influence is taking place. Likewise, the celebrant of the Sacrament is no longer an imperious giver of grace, but a prayer book about God’s influence and a guarantor that God truly influences. At the same time, both prayer and the guarantee of the priest receive their strength from the prayer and guarantee of the Church of the “fulfillment of Christ” on earth. This means that the Sacraments are valid as long as the priest is in union with the Church and performs sacred functions on its behalf. On the contrary, for a Catholic everything is clear and definite. The grace of God is a power that came from God, transferred by him to the hierarchy, and therefore already has an existence separate from God. It is convenient to attach it as an impersonal force to a known form (opus operatum) and make it directly dependent on the performer. It must be admitted that we Orthodox Christians often fall into such a lowered, materialized idea of ​​grace and the Sacraments. This also happens under Catholic influence. The main thing is that it is always easier for a carnal man, a man of the “world,” to operate with carnal, “spiritual” concepts than with “spiritual” ones. But in any case, this is inconsistency from a purely spiritual point of view of Orthodoxy. The logical conclusion from the Western concept of grace is an exaggerated view of the very personality of the priest to the detriment of his significance as a servant of the Church, especially developed in Catholicism. The priest who has received legal ordination with grace there personally becomes some kind of independent source of grace, although by succession from others. If we add to this the doctrine of the indelibility of grace, then it turns out that a priest can diverge from his ecclesiastical authority, be banned, can completely abandon Christianity, become, for example, an occultist or an open atheist, and yet he remains a priest, retains his apostolic ordination and all his acts as a priest continue to be valid, even if he celebrated the so-called “black mass.” In turn, the bishop, when performing consecration, acts by virtue of the grace of the bishop personally inherent in him, teaches, roughly speaking, his own, and not the church’s grace, and therefore it is also not so important whether he is in agreement with his Church or has already left it. And since the grace of the priesthood is received not from the Church, but from the ordainers, who, for their part, received it from their ordinators and so on to the Apostles, then does it really matter whether they are Orthodox, whether they belong to the Universal Church or to some heterodox society? If only there were an undeniable apostolic succession in a given society, the consecration would be valid. The initiate will, in turn, be an independent bearer of grace, which he can use at his own discretion, completely disregarding either the teaching or the desires of those who gave him ordination. The main lie of such a distortion of the concepts of grace, the priesthood and spiritual life in general is especially clearly revealed by those extreme, ugly conclusions that are sometimes reached in practice by too straightforward, and perhaps unceremonious, seekers of succession from the Apostles. If the grace of the priesthood is something like an unconscious and indifferent to its fate substance (almost a commodity), then there is no reason why anyone who can, no matter by what means, could use such a substance. I remember something similar from the history of our schism - the Old Believers, various, sometimes quite childish, tricks (for example, they immersed the priest in the font without removing his liturgical vestments, so as not to “remove the ordination”), which they resorted to in order to win over a person with apostolic ordination, and not to become infected with Nikonianism. To the credit of the Old Believers, none of them decided to commit sacrilege: fraudulently accept Orthodoxy, achieve ordination there, and then return with the resulting priesthood back to their own people. The Old Believers did not go further than inviting or luring Orthodox bishops and priests into their consent. Not so in the West. They did not limit themselves to luring foreign bishops and priests, but directly decided to seize apostolic ordination for themselves personally in a foreign, even heretical, society in order to use the ordination in their own group laying claim to Orthodoxy. For example, Vilatt, who was quite sensational in his time. For apostolic consecration, he even went to India, to the Jacobites there, so that he could then distribute the consecration to those who wished it, either among the Anglicans (in America), or among the Old Catholics (for example, in France), or rather, everywhere and to everyone, wherever and whoever wants to use his episcopal services. Imitators of Vilattu appear to this day. For example, in Germany, which especially boasts of its theological science and Christian enlightenment, there are several religious groups (not counting the Old Catholic) that claim to be recognized as Orthodox. Such is the Evangelical Catholic Brotherhood, which numbers several tens of thousands of followers. The Brotherhood is headed by the Lutheran pastor Herzog, who accepted episcopal consecration from the Monophysites. For Lutherans, he continues to be a pastor, and in the Orthodox Brotherhood he serves as an Orthodox bishop. Bishop Tikhon (of the Karlovac group) allegedly allows followers of the Brotherhood to communicate in prayer and even receive communion. There is also the High Church Society with more than half a million followers. This Society is nourished by the professor of Lutheran theology, Heil, who accepted episcopal consecration, also from the Monophysites, and by “hundreds” of Lutheran pastors, ordained (probably by Heil himself) to Orthodox priests. All of them, while retaining their Lutheran positions, some as professors, some as pastors, serve at the same time as the Orthodox hierarchy in the “Orthodox society”... There is still a German Orthodox diaspora in Germany, or at least Spiridion, who calls himself the “metropolitan” of this diaspora, a very indicative personality for seekers of apostolic ordination. According to him, he is only 33 years old, and he has already been in the rank of bishop for more than seven years. He is German; baptized and confirmed Catholic. He took a theological course at Catholic monasteries in Belgium and Luxembourg. But at the age of nineteen he left Catholicism for Old Catholicism and got married. He soon became disillusioned with Old Catholicism and from 1926 “stood entirely on purely Orthodox soil.” This did not prevent Spiridion in October 1927 from turning to some (apparently wandering) Armenian married bishop Gregory Guzik, who within five days ordained him (also married) as a deacon, presbyter and, finally, bishop of the “Armenian Orthodox Church” (without designating a department). Having received such consecration, Spiridion considered himself entitled to declare himself the metropolitan of the German Orthodox diaspora - a community supposedly numbering up to 200 people with seven priests, and now asks to be recognized in this title without fail in a black hood and with a “pomegranate” (not at all different) cross on it. Who this Guzik is and from whom he received the bishopric, Spiridion, apparently, himself does not know well. At least at the beginning, he said that he could not accurately establish the origin of Guzik’s consecration, because now all the participants in the consecration (as if Guzik himself) had returned to Rome. Spiridion at first called Guzik an Orthodox bishop of a renovationist orientation, but installed not by the renovationists, but by the Armenian-Uniates precisely in that Armenian group, which in the seventies of the last century, following its bishop Kypelian, broke with Rome. Since, having broken with Rome, these Armenians did not adhere to the Monophysites, Spyridion hastens to call them Orthodox. This “Orthodox-Armenian patriarch” (as Spiridion calls him) Kipellian and his bishop Kassangian allegedly installed the renovationist bishop Gregory Guzik. Note: Kipellian returned to Rome back in 1879, and Guzik’s consecration, therefore, took place even earlier. Subsequently, Spiridion reveals that Guzik’s second ordainer, Kassangian, turned out to be not a bishop, but a chorebishop in the presbytery degree. In the last letters of Spiridion it is established that Guzik was ordained not by Kypelian and Kassangian, but by the Anglican Bishop Gore, and Kassangian’s attitude towards the ordination is limited only by the fact that he, in his Armenian-Uniate group, recognized Guzik’s ordination as valid. Such a discovery even seems to smile at Spiridion - after all, Anglican consecrations are now recognized by some Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, which means that his consecration is now easier to recognize. Thus, the Anglican consecration, recognized by the Armenian-Uniate group that separated from Rome, gives a renovationist bishop (long before the emergence of renovationism), and this latter is competent to install an Orthodox bishop for the German Orthodox diaspora! The strangeness of all such searches for Orthodox ordination in various backyards is increased by the fact that in Western Europe, one might say, at the fingertips of the seekers, there were and are real Orthodox bishops: Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, and others, not to mention His Eminence Metropolitan Eleutherius, who governs our Churches in Western Europe. Probably, the wandering Armenians and others like them were more accommodating, did not look at the distribution of consecration to those who wished, no matter who they were, so seriously and therefore did not set particularly restrictive conditions. Such ugly phenomena, of course, are already extremes and undoubtedly meet with condemnation from serious people in the West. However, the soil that gives rise to them remains and underlies completely sincere aspirations for universal unity (for example, Anglicans, Old Catholics and others), equipped with all kinds of scientific apparatus. Exaggerating the importance of apostolic succession, these seekers of unity believe that the heterodox society, although it has broken away from the Church, since it has retained the apostolic succession of the priesthood, continues to remain the Local Church within the Universal Church as its part. True, errors in dogmas or violations of basic canonical requirements and the like deprived this Local Church of Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox Local Churches. But even far from communication, until she finally retreats from the faith of Christ, she continues to live the church life, performs the Sacraments, and saves the people. For such a Local Church, Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox is extremely desirable and practically useful in the form of mutual support in church work. With all this, for her this is only a moral duty (according to the commandment of Christ: “That they all may be one”), rather a very fascinating distant ideal than a practical vital necessity: having lost communication, a heterodox society, even without it, does not cease to be the Local Church, part of the Universal Church. In order to restore itself in communion, the heterodox “Church” must only recognize its dogmatic and canonical errors and correct them, which it can do on its own, and then by the very fact of correction it becomes a full member of the union of Orthodox Local Churches, united by mutual communion in the Eucharist and prayers. No reception of rites, no affiliation with any of the existing Orthodox Churches is required for such a restoration. At the same time, having experienced only unity with Rome, accompanied by the absorption of all local identity and independence, Westerners are afraid that in inviting them to unite with the Eastern Orthodox Church they will meet the same attempt to subjugate them to the East with the loss of their identity. This fear, of course, greatly dampens the already lukewarm thoughts about church unification. In fact, if communion with the Orthodox Church in the Eucharist is only a very desirable decoration of church life, and not life itself, then is it reasonable to risk very valuable realities because of an abstract idea that can be very exciting and edifying, but practically of little use? Hence, in negotiations there are a lot of sweet words, a lot of learning, as well as a lot of bickering over unimportant things, a lot of perseverance in defending one’s own, but there is no that thirst that makes you “go to the springs of salvation” (Is. 55:1; 12:3) that spiritual feat with which one can “perform great things” (Great Canon). IV. The idea of ​​the Universal Church as such a conglomerate of heterogeneous parts - Local Churches, some of which are Orthodox and others are not, has many attractive aspects. Sometimes it is expressed by Orthodox Christians, even representatives of the Orthodox hierarchy. For example, Metropolitan Platon of Kiev (Gorodetsky, 1891), once while touring the diocese, visiting a Catholic church, publicly stated in a sermon (so to speak, officially) that “our human partitions do not reach the sky.” In particular, this idea spreads and becomes fashionable during periods of well-known unifying sentiments, as was the case under Paul I with his Maltese grandmaster, during the period of the Holy Alliance, and so on. It was pointed out to me that even Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow interpreted the petition at the Great Litany: “for the welfare of the Holy Churches of God,” that is, the Orthodox, “and for the unification of all,” that is, also the Churches, but non-Orthodox. (The erroneous interpretation is obvious: the word “all” here is put in the masculine or neuter gender, and “ekklisia” - “Church” - requires the feminine.) Probably, many similar statements can be heard at various inter-church congresses, congresses of religions, etc. today. But this very attractive - so broad and reconciling - theory cannot be called ecclesiastical. The Church of Christ has always understood its unity in the one Eucharist: “All partake of the one bread and cup.” The hierarchy may be present, it can undoubtedly trace its succession from the Apostles, but, as it is excommunicated from communion in the Eucharist with the Church, the hierarchy loses the power that remains with the Church to bind and decide, and even more so to celebrate the true Eucharist. Therefore, only those Local Churches that have not lost participation in this universal united Eucharist can be living members of the Universal Church of Christ. The circle of such participants may at times be reduced to the last minimum, but this does not change matters and does not give the apostate majority the right to consider themselves the Church. The most that can be allowed is that heterodoxy is the dimly lit vestibule or courtyard of the Church, where the fallen stood, excommunicated from communion and prayerful communion, although not yet completely strangers to the Church. The path to the restoration of lost communication, and through this to eternal salvation, is the same for fallen societies as for every fallen one. It is necessary not only to acknowledge one’s sins before the Church, but also to receive from the Church, which alone has the power to bind and decide, permission (to participate in its Eucharist), which is done in the reception of rites. Only this permission allows the excommunicated person access to full membership of the Church. That this is the true teaching of the Church about itself and that this is the teaching of the ancient Church, “undivided”, so dear to the Old Catholics and the like, this is proven not only by the written monuments of that time, but also by living witnesses, the surviving societies of Nestorians, Monophysites - Armenians and Copts, Maronites and others. All these societies moved away from the “indivisible” Church, and when they left it, each of them believed (and continues to believe to this day) that it is precisely the Orthodox Church of Christ, and everything else (including our Orthodoxy) is a schism or heresy. They thought of themselves not only as part of the Church next to other independent parts, although the best of all. For them, the Church was and is not the sum of parts different in dignity and separated in life, but a single monolithic society, bound by a single Eucharist. Outside this society there are only church fragments that have no independent significance. These societies learned to believe this way precisely from the “indivisible” Church. As for the attempts described above to acquire the grace of the priesthood somehow outside of the Church, that is, outside of it or, although from it, but without its consent, all these attempts in themselves already carry their own condemnation. They are unacceptable for the Church and are pointless for those who are trying: they do not bring them the sought-after grace of the priesthood. Firstly, all such attempts presuppose a crudely sensual, superstitious concept of the Sacrament of the Priesthood itself as some kind of magical talisman, which is so strong that it works miracles, and at the same time helpless, like any inanimate thing. You can steal it from the wizard on the sly and then use the talisman at your discretion. And such spiritual blindness actually means internal unbelief, “petrified insensibility” to a spiritually grace-filled life, in general, a state of the soul that prevents one from receiving the desired grace. Let us remember that Simon Magus did not receive the grace of the bishop precisely because he “thought” something blasphemous about the gift of God, which revealed “the wrongness of his heart before God” (Acts 8:18–23). Of course, in the Church there are priests with such a state of mind. But as long as the priest is in the Church and acts on her behalf, his shortcomings are covered by the Fullness of the Church. Having left it, what will he bring to his new flock? Secondly, these attempts are in fact accompanied by violations of the canons, leading to an eruption, that is, very often - by bribery, especially when luring priests and bishops, as was the case with Ambrose of Belokrinitsky (and for this, not only those appointed and appointed for a bribe are deprived of grace, but also their accomplices - laymen and monks - are anathematized [see: IV Ecumenical Council, 2]), and almost always by deception in one form or another, which is equivalent to bribery and equally deprives of grace (cf. VII Ecumenical Council, 8). A classic example of an attempt to outwit each other when transferring the grace of the priesthood from the Orthodox Church to a schism is the “order” established in September 1925 in Ashgabat by Bishop Andrei Ukhtomsky and Archimandrite Clement, who fled from the Church. On behalf of the Old Believers, Clement came to Bishop Andrei to invite him to join them. Bishop Andrei knew very well that the Old Believers would accept him only according to the second rite, that is, with a renunciation of Nikonianism and through confirmation, and yet he agreed. But, renouncing Nikonianism, he took advantage of sophism: Nikon’s corrections served as an impetus for the church reforms of Peter I, and on the basis of the latter, a new direction in church life grew, which gave birth to renovationists. Consequently, to renounce renovationism means to renounce Nikonianism. He also anointed himself with Myrrh, but tried to think that he was not performing the Sacrament of Confirmation, but a simple anointing as a sign of spiritual joy on the occasion of what had happened. Clement, who was to receive his consecration as a bishop from Bishop Andrei, hastened to close his eyes to all these small inaccuracies. Bishop Andrei became an Old Believer bishop, and Clement received consecration. However, the Old Believers were not satisfied with this qui pro quo: they did not recognize either Andrei as their bishop or Clement. The Old Believers themselves often resort to essentially the same tricks. For example, they try to ensure that someone leaving the Church for them has time, so to speak, to climb over the church fence - to be accepted into the Old Believers - before the church court imposes a ban on him or deprivation of his rank. They forget that in addition to the external, human judgment, there is also the Judgment of God, from which nowhere and nothing can hide. “If they are hidden in hell, then from there also will My hand tear it out” (Amos 9:2). Yes, and external ecclesiastical court can reach a runaway, no matter where he runs away: according to the canons, a runaway cleric remains a cleric of the former diocese and he is still subject to the jurisdiction of his bishop, just as a runaway bishop is subject to the jurisdiction of his kiriarch. Joining a schismatic society will not be a shelter from the court, but will only be an additional reason to deprive those who have fled of their rank, or at least to prohibit and invalidate everything they have done since leaving the Church. Even more doubtful and just as hopeless in terms of obtaining what you are looking for is the path of applying for the priesthood to some heterodox society. For example, one seemingly quite good archimandrite lost patience with waiting for an Orthodox bishop and decided to achieve his goal in a roundabout way: he deviated into renovationism, received consecration there, and soon came to me with repentance and with a request to accept him into the Church. Or even “better”: a young hieromonk, very active, who received awards from his bishop, among other things, for the fight against renovationism and Grigorievism, suddenly turns out to be the bishop of Grigoriev and writes me a petition for admission into the Church, promising to bring his entire bishopric with him. The reasoning of both is clear: “True, going into schism is a sin; the church court will punish with penance; but I will repent of my sin, I will endure penance - after all, in the end, the bishopric will remain with me.” Of course, it is impossible to accept both of these persons in their current rank, even if we accepted the consecrations of the Grigorievites and (after April 2, 1924) the Renovationists. The greatest leniency towards both petitioners would be not to deprive them of the priesthood for their blasphemous trick, leaving one as an archimandrite and the other as a hieromonk. The same goes for the trips of highly learned German professors to the Monophysites for ordination. The person being ordained is clearly deceiving: he reads the Monophysite confession, promises loyalty to the Monophysite hierarchy, but in his soul he knows perfectly well that he does not want to be a Monophysite and will not be, that he will immediately break off all service relations with the Monophysite hierarchy, because he needs the bishopric for himself and for his community. If the ordainers are not deceived in the real intentions of their protege, then they participate in the deception of their Monophysite society. The suspicion involuntarily creeps in that the vigilance of the spiritual guards of Monophysitism in such cases is lulled by very unspiritual means. If the ordainers are very disinterestedly carried away by a kind of charity: to provide bishops to a wandering society that has lagged behind Lutheranism or Catholicism, but has not adhered to the Church, then the Church has the right to consider such ordination as an action aimed at the detriment of the Orthodox mission and to apply to such extraterritorial ordination all the severity of the canons (see: Holy Apostles, 14; I Ecumenical Council, 16; Sardician Council, 15, etc.). As for the aforementioned Grigory Guzik and his protege Spiridion, neither one nor the other can be recognized as a bishop, even if they were not both married. Guzik received ordination from the Anglicans, whose priesthood is not recognized by our Russian Church. Recognition of this consecration by Cassangian, an Armenian Uniate who broke away from Rome, is not necessary for anyone. One only needs to be surprised at Spiridion that he, a theologically educated man, allowed himself to be consecrated by some wandering bishop, who knows what consecration, and then declared himself an Orthodox bishop. Thus, those who deny any significance of apostolic succession in heterodoxy, as immoderate zealots of Orthodox dogma do, are also wrong, but those who imagine this succession as some kind of value in itself, which can be dispensed with without the Orthodox Universal Church, are even more mistaken. The enormous advantage of heterodox societies that have retained apostolic succession is that the Church still considers them “church members” (εκ της Έκκλησίας), “not yet alien to the Church”; she still retains “a certain rule of communication” with them, similar to what she has with the fallen and those bearing penance. However, if this imperfect and unreliable communion does not end in complete unity with the Church in a single Eucharist, all the advantages of such heterodox societies are wasted without benefit (see: Rom. 9: 4-5; 10: 4). This refers to the article “The attitude of the Church of Christ to the societies that have separated from it” - A.L. Dispensation is permission granted in exceptional cases. – Note. ed. One instead of the other (lat.). You might be interested in: