Apostolic Succession and Priesthood in Evangelical Churches. Apostolic succession in Orthodoxy

Report on IX Interview of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church of Germany.

I. The sacramental side of the life of the Church is very broad. It includes all the sacraments performed in the Church, as approved "on the basis of the apostles and prophets, having Jesus Christ Himself as the cornerstone" (Eph. 2, 20) - For each church sacrament, sacramentally communion with the created nature and, above all, man, the grace of the Holy Spirit, is, in its measure and degree (I Cor. 15:41), a sacrament given by the Apostolic Church to all believers for their sanctification, healing, deification. For example, it is enough to mention the rite of consecrating water, or monastic tonsure, in which the grace of God acts on believers with undoubted evidence. Is it not for this reason that among the ancient church writers we often find in the enumeration of the sacraments those sacred rites, which later, although they ceased to be called sacraments, in order to distinguish by this name from among all the seven primary ones, but remained in the Church with the same meaning, meaning, and many of them were used until this day, such as they had in the ancient Church. Recognition of this fact is of vital importance for the Christian, for it fills his faith with a deeper content and thereby contributes to his greater sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, this recognition requires, as an indispensable condition for accepting, first of all, the priesthood and pastoral service as a special, different from the “royal priesthood” (I Peter 2:9) of all Christians of the God-established ministry, through which all the faithful are sanctified by these manifold gifts of God’s grace. For if the "apostolic" succession, taken in its full extent, embraces the essence of the whole life of the Church in all its aspects and manifestations: in the teaching of faith and morality, in the spiritual and sacramental life, in the canonical structure, then, in the final analysis, it concentrates it is precisely in the special ministry of the priesthood and pastoral work as the center and spokesman of the teaching, authority and priesthood in the Church.For this reason, the question of the nature and forms of the transmission of the apostolic grace of priesthood and pastoral work from the first disciples of Christ to an infinite number of their successors acquires special significance. Scripture definitely speaks of the God-established nature of the apostolate (Mark 3:13-14; 6:7; Luke 6:13; 10:1; John 15:16; Acts 20:28; I Cor. 15:9- Yu; Gal. 1:1, etc.) and other types of service "for the building up of the Body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:28). It also indicates the forms of ordination to the priesthood in the Church: election and consecration (for example, , Acts. I, 16-26:14,23; 2 Tim. 1.6; Tit. 1.5). At the same time, special significance is attached to ordination, which is mentioned everywhere in the appointment of pastors to the ministry. But how are these indications of Holy Scripture to be understood: as transient facts that took place in the first Christian communities, or as the eternal establishment of God in the Church? Without touching now on the exegesis of the relevant passages of Scripture, which, alas, are no longer able to respond to modern Christians of different faiths who have departed far from each other in their understanding of Scripture, let us turn to the Holy Tradition of the Church. What do the most ancient fathers, who lived immediately after the apostles, say about the significance of ordination, successively coming from the apostles, for priesthood and pastoral work, about the God-established nature of this service in the Church? Let's take a look at their testimonies. St. Clement of Rome: "The apostles were sent to preach the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God... Preaching in various countries and cities, they ordained the first-born of believers, after a spiritual test, to be bishops and deacons for future believers." He: "And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention about episcopal dignity. For this very reason, having learned perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above ministers, and then added the law, so that when they rest, other tested men would receive on Therefore, we consider it unjust to deprive those appointed by the apostles themselves or after them by other revered men, with the consent of the whole Church ... And it will be a considerable sin on us if we do not reproachfully and holyly bring gifts, we will deprive the episcopacy. So, according to St. Clement, the apostles themselves installed bishops and established the "law" of succession in these appointments for the future. St. Ignatius the God-bearer in his epistles writes about the episcopal ministry as established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and, hence, about the greatness of this ministry. Addressing the Church of Philadelphia, for example, he writes: “I greet her with the blood of Jesus Christ, which is eternal and unceasing joy for believers, especially if they are in union with the bishop and his presbyters and deacons, appointed by the will of Jesus Christ, whom, in His good pleasure, He He established it unshakably by His Holy Spirit. I learned that your bishop, not by himself and not through people, accepted this service to the community of believers, not out of vanity, but out of the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." “For everyone whom the householder sends to rule his house, we must receive the same as the one who sent it. Therefore, it is clear that the bishop should also be looked upon as the Lord Himself."4 Hence the natural conclusion: "For those who are God's and Jesus the Christ, those are with the bishop."5 St. Ignatius's request to the Philadelphians to take part in the election and appointment of a bishop in Antioch: “Blessed, O Jesus Christ, who is worthy of such a service,” he writes about the future bishop, “and you will be glorified for that. If you want, then it is not impossible for you for the sake of the name of God, since the nearest churches have already sent bishops, and some - presbyters and deacons. was a self-evident norm in the life of the Church.At St. Irenaeus of Lyon we learn that the apostles installed, for example, the first bishop of Rome, Lin, and then he successively lists his successors up to his time inclusive: "... now in twelfth place from the apostles the lot of the bishopric belongs to Eleutherus. In this order and in this succession, the tradition of the Church from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this serves as the most complete proof that the same life-giving faith has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to this day and has been betrayed in its true form. And Polycarp... was ordained bishop of the Church of Smyrna in Asia by the apostles." St. Irenaeus even writes: "Everyone who wants to see the truth can learn in every church the tradition of the apostles, open all over the world; and we can enumerate the bishops appointed by the apostles in the churches, and their successors before us ... ". St. Irenaeus, still using apostolic terminology, sometimes does not make a distinction between the concepts of "presbyter" and "bishop", but at the same time very the presence of a permanent apostolic succession in the Church is clearly stated, thus he urges: “Therefore, it is necessary to follow the elders in the Church, those who, as I have shown, have succession from the apostles and, together with the succession of episcopacy, by the good pleasure of the Father, learned a certain gift of truth, while others, who deviate from the original succession and are going to be suspected anywhere, either as heretics and false teachers, or as schismatics..." The following testimony of Clement of Alexandria seems very important. Talking about the last years of the life of the Apostle John the Theologian, Clement writes: "When, after the death of the tyrant, he returned, from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he undertook a journey through neighboring areas to attract (to about Christ) pagans, the appointment of bishops, the introduction of order in the churches, the appointment of one or more clergy, appointed by the Holy Spirit. As V. Ekzemplyarsky rightly remarks, "from this place it is certain that, according to the views of Clement, in apostolic times, the right of the communities of believers themselves to appoint members of the clergy was not recognized." Such a right belonged only to the apostles and, as other fathers testify, to the bishops (presbyters) directly appointed by them and their successors. From the most ancient period of the Church, several more patristic testimonies can be cited to confirm this idea. Tertullian: “Let them give out,” he says of heretics, “the archives of their Churches, declare the order of their bishops, so successively from the very beginning, so that the first bishop had one of the apostles or apostolic husbands as the founder or predecessor. Thus they keep the account of the Church apostolic.." St. Hippolytus of Rome: "Let the one elected by all the people be appointed as a bishop, and when he is named and liked by all, let the people gather together with the presbyters and the bishops present on Sunday. By agreement of all, let them lay hands on him, and let the presbyters stand In silence.Let everyone keep silence, praying in the heart - "due to the descent of the Spirit. One of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on the one who is consecrated as a bishop, let him pray, saying this ... St. Cyprian of Carthage: "The Church is one, and being one, it cannot be both inside and outside. If it was with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius... who succeeded Bishop Fabian by lawful consecration... Novatian... does not belong to the Church; , cannot be considered a bishop; a person who is not initiated in the Church cannot in any way have the Church and possess it. "Or, how can "he be considered a shepherd who, in the presence of a shepherd who governs in the Church of God by succession of consecration, turns out to be a stranger and outsider...?" Gospels: "I say to you..." (Matthew 16:18-19). From here successively and successively proceed the power of the bishops (vices eriscoporum ordinatio) and the administration of the Church, so that the Church is placed on the bishops and all the actions of the Church are controlled by the same rulers. in our country and in almost all countries: for a correct appointment, all the nearest bishops must gather in the flock for which the primate is appointed, and elect a bishop in the presence of the people. .. We know that this was also done with you when our comrade Sabin was appointed; he was given the episcopate and hands were laid on him, instead of Basilides, with the consent of the whole brotherhood and according to the decision of the bishops, both those who were present at the time, and those who wrote about him to you. And this ordination, rightly done, cannot be destroyed by that circumstance ... "etc. The following remark of St. Cyprian is also important, that, for example, in Rome, Cornelius "was ordained bishop by many of our comrades," more precisely, "by sixteen co-bishops ". Even more clearly the idea of ​​​​apostolic succession of ordination is expressed by a contemporary and like-minded St. Cyprian, Bishop Firmilian: "... the power to forgive sins was granted to the apostles ... and then to the bishops, who inherited them by the succession of consecration." In an authoritative voice of ancient church teaching are the so-called Canons of the Holy Apostles, in which on this issue we find the following indication: "Let two or three bishops appoint a bishop" (canon I). "Let one bishop appoint a presbyter and a deacon and other clerks" (canon 2). From the collective voice of the Fathers of the Church of the first three centuries on this issue, it is quite obvious: but, but comes from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and is accomplished through a special action of the Holy Spirit. b) The bishop (primate of the local Church) receives grace and power in the Church through direct succession of ordination, coming directly from the apostles themselves. Such is the "Divine tradition" and the "law" of initiations in the ancient Church of the first three centuries. 3. But if the very fact of apostolic succession in the appointment of clergy in the ancient Church is not in doubt (one of the joint theses of the Third Conversation between representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, for example, reads: "Consecration from apostolic times is accomplished through successive ordination with by the invocation of the Holy Spirit," this, however, does it mean that succession involves the transmission of the grace of the priesthood ONLY through episcopal ordination, or are other forms possible, such as the appointment of presbyters and bishops by the community itself (lay laiki) or the appointment of a bishop In the above statements of the Fathers, although they speak only of bishops (presbyters) as bearers of the fullness of the successive grace of the priesthood, however, with the ambiguity of the newly emerging terminology among the most ancient fathers (as in Holy Scripture), it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between separate hierarchical degrees and understand their significance in the preservation of the apostolic succession of the priesthood in the Church. This ambiguity of terminology and sometimes the vagueness of expressions in the description of the appointments of the bishop by the most ancient fathers led some researchers, including individual Russians (for example, Prof. A. Pokrovsky, Prof. A. Spassky, to incorrect conclusions. Naturally, the resolution of this kind of bewilderment can be found only in later testimonies - the fathers of the 10th and subsequent centuries - the era of the already finally established terminology. Since the conciliar voice of the fathers is of primary importance, we first of all point out the definitions of the Ecumenical and Local councils related to this issue. the council, in its fourth canon, commands "to appoint a bishop ... to all the bishops of that region," or at least three, if necessary, must "consecrate." One hundred and fifty fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in canon 28, pronouncing a ruling on the Church of Constantinople and the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, in particular, decided: "... each metropolitan of the aforementioned regions she, with the bishops of the region, must appoint diocesan bishops, as prescribed by the divine rules. The third canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council speaks of election to the sacred service: “Any election to the bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, made by worldly rulers, shall be invalid ... defined in the rule. The Council of Antioch in 341 determined: "Let a bishop not be delivered without a council and the presence of the metropolitan of the region" (prav. 19). "Let the Church's ordinance be observed, which determines that a bishop should be appointed not otherwise, except with a council and according to the judgment of bishops, who have the power to produce a worthy one" (prav. 23). The Council of Laodicea of ​​343: "Bishops, by the judgment of the metropolitans and neighboring bishops, shall be appointed to the church authorities" (right. 12). Council of Carthage in 419: "Many bishops, having gathered, let them appoint a bishop. And if necessary, three bishops, no matter where they are, at the command of the preeminent let them appoint a bishop" (right. 13). "Let the ancient order be observed: less than three bishops, as determined in the rules, let them not be recognized as satisfied for the appointment of a bishop" (prav.60). Apostolic decrees: “Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops. If he is ordained by one bishop, then let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. a similar reason, then he will present the consent to this of a greater number of bishops" (Book of VSH, ch. 27). The canons of the Council, therefore, emphatically state that only bishops can supply a bishop, that is, consecrate. The statements of individual fathers of this era on this issue, being unanimous both with the conciliar teaching of the Church and among themselves, are very numerous. We will therefore give here only a few by way of illustration. St. Basil the Great wrote about the practice of accepting those who apostatized from the Church: “But by the way, the ancients, I mean Cyprian and our Firmilian, decided to bring them all ... to bring them all under one definition; because, although the beginning of the separation was due to a schism, but those who apostatized from the Church did not already had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, since the teaching of it became poor after the interruption of succession, and although the first who separated had ordination from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands they received spiritual gift; but those who were torn away, having become laymen, had no power either to baptize or ordain, and were unable to convey to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen away. What attracts attention here is the idea that Basil the Great, as a matter of course, speaks of ordination from the fathers through the laying on of hands, thanks to which only the minister receives the authority to officiate as long as he is in the Church. St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the first epistle to Timothy (1U.14) writes: "He (al. Paul) does not speak about presbyters here, but about bishops, because presbyters did not ordain bishops." He, in a conversation with the words of the Apostle Paul to Titus, "For this I left you in Crete, so that you would complete what was not finished and put presbyters in all cities," he says: "Where there was danger and great difficulty, he corrected everything himself by personal presence; and what brought more honor or glory, he entrusts to the disciple, namely: the ordination of bishops and everything else ... "He, in a conversation on the epistle to the Philippians:" And the presbyters could not ordain bishops. The fathers of the local council in Alexandria (340), which was attended by "nearly a hundred bishops," wrote the following in their District Epistle in defense of St. Athanasius: "They say (the Arians) that after the death of Bishop Alexander, they recalled Athanasius, he was ordained by six or seven bishops secretly, in a secret place... This was also written to the kings by these people, who do not refuse to write any lie ... And that many of us ordained him, in the eyes of everyone and with the general exclamation of all, “To this again we, who ordained, serve as more reliable witnesses than those who were not present and who speak lies.” Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus in his Panaria speaks against the Sebastian heretic Aerius: “He (Aerius) says that the bishop and the presbyter are one and the same. How is this possible? able to give birth to fathers, gives birth to children for the Church through the bath of resurrection, and not fathers or teachers. Yevseny Pamphilus reports, for example, about one of the cases of the appointment of a bishop of Jerusalem in the 90s of the 2nd century: the place of another, whose name was Diy". All these testimonies of the fathers of the ancient Church (and they could be significantly multiplied) undoubtedly testify to the common practice of appointing bishops in the ancient Church, and, consequently, to the common understanding of apostolic succession in the celebration of the sacrament of the priesthood. True, at first glance, the following words of Bl. Jerome from the Letter to the Evangelist: "... the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same bishops ... listen and another testimony, in which it is most clearly stated that the bishop and the presbyter are one and the same ... (Tit. I, 5-7)... And that later one was chosen and placed in charge of the rest - this was done to eliminate the schism... For in Alexandria, from the time of the Evangelist Mark even to the bishops of Heracles and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one from among their own and raising him to the highest rank, they called him a bishop, just as the army makes emperor, and the deacons choose from among themselves one who is known to the needle for a man of diligence, and call him archdeacon. would a presbyter do?" However, in this case, Jerome did not express the idea of ​​the appointment of a bishop by presbyters, since he directly concludes his message: "For what does a bishop, except for the laying on of hands, that a presbyter would not do?" Archbishop Lolly (Yuryevsky) (+1935) in his profound scientific study of the issue of ordinations in the ancient Church in relation to this testimony of Blessed. Jerome comes to the following conclusion: “As soon as we read the words of Blessed Jerome to this end, it will immediately become clear why, speaking of the rights of the Alexandrian presbyters of the most ancient period, he points out that these presbyters “chosen”, “erected to the highest degree", "called a bishop" of their chosen one, acted like an army and deacons, but does not say that they "ordain" and act like bishops of other Churches. Jerome in this case himself explains why the presbyters did not ordain: ordination is an exclusive function of the episcopal rank. Not only in this passage from Jerome, but nowhere else in his writings do we find any talk of presbyters (priests) anywhere and ever having the right to perform ordinations and would actually perform these ordinations. When reading the above passage, one involuntarily comes to mind the words of St. John Chrysostom: "And the presbyters received teaching and leadership in the Church, and what (Ap. Paul) says about bishops also applies to presbyters, for bishops predominate by ordination alone and by this alone they appear to be superior to presbyters." Archbishop Lolly thus shows that this statement is blessed. Jerome does not in the least contradict either his (Jerome's) own convictions, which he repeatedly expresses in his writings, or, consequently, the general agreement of the ancient fathers of the Church on this issue. An outstanding Russian historian of the last century V.V. Bolotov summarizes his research on the issue of ordination in the ancient Church in the following words: "... we do not know of a single specific case when a bishop was ordained by presbyters." And he writes even more emphatically about another possibility: “The supposed democratic principle of the ecclesiastical hierarchy turns out to be the least justified: nowhere do we find facts confirming it; there is absolutely no example that a community ever consecrated a presbyter or bishop.” Turning now to the question raised earlier about the lawful performers of the ordination of pastors of the Church, it can be stated, proceeding from the teachings of the fathers of the era of Councils, that the decision of clergy (and first of all bishops) is made only by bishops; this right bishops have by virtue of the succession of their ordination, coming from the apostles themselves; the grace of priesthood bestowed upon a pastor upon ordination can be taken away only because of his crime against the Church, and not by the will of the people; episcopal consecration has a special grace-filled character, distinct from the grace of "royal priesthood" inherent in all Christians; this special grace of the priesthood, which is fully inherent in the bishop, also has other, lower degrees, in particular, presbyter and deacon; Presbyters and deacons cannot ordain. Only the bishop has such a right, and, consequently, the apostolic succession of ordination in the Church is realized only through the bishop. 4. The Church Fathers of the era of the Councils did not, as we see, introduce anything fundamentally new into the ancient church, or rather, the apostolic teaching about the priesthood and pastor. They look at the priesthood as a ministry that receives special grace, and because of this, a special right to teach, govern and serve in the Church, only through the lawful succession of ordination, coming from the apostles themselves and continuing through the bishops. The same doctrine was contained by the Church in the first three centuries, and it was precisely this doctrine that was preserved, based on it, and referred to by the fathers of all subsequent centuries. And although in the historical development of the life of the Church certain forms have changed, new prayers have been introduced, and whole rites of consecration of pastors have been composed, however, the dogmatic principle itself has always remained unchanged in it: apostolic succession in ordinations is carried out and preserved only through the bishop. In this paragraph, we see full consensus patrum Theses of the report The main conclusions on the question of the significance of apostolic succession for the priesthood and pastoral work according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church can be expressed in the following theses: 1. Apostolic succession in its entire scope of content represents the fullness of the foundations of Christian knowledge and life in the Church. its unconditional significance for all Christians and especially for those who are called to a special ministry in the Church—priesthood and pastorship—is obvious. from apostles through bishops, who only, according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, have the right to ordain bishops, presbyters, deacons, and other clerics. That is, the episcopate, according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, is the only legitimate successor to the apostles in the appointment of clergy in the Church. 4. Since all the sacraments are divine-human, the Holy Spirit acts in them by divine institution in the Church through a definite and unchanging human ritual in its essence. Such in the appointment of the clergy from the beginning of the existence of the Church is the successive ordination, coming from the apostles and carried out only through the bishops. 5. Pastoral work, being the direct duty of the clergy (mainly bishops and presbyters), is therefore naturally associated with the apostolic succession of ordinations.

The absence in Baptist theology of frequent references to apostolic succession, succession and "apostolicity" as such, does not mean that Baptists do not feel their historical connection with the ancient Church of the first Christians. Like many other theological concepts, the expression "apostolic succession" has a certain meaning, which is not shared by Baptists and Christians of other Protestant denominations with Catholics and Orthodox. We believe in our historical and theological connection with the early Church, which was established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18). But this connection is not some kind of mystical and blessed chain of various successions of ordinations, when it is possible to trace historically how the grace of episcopacy passes from one hierarch of the Church to another. Even if one adheres to such an understanding, a lot of canonical problems arise, which are solved only by the arguments of theological compromises and shaded explanations (for example, the appointment of bishops by secular authorities is canonically unacceptable).

The concept of "apostolic succession" arose in the ancient Church when it became necessary to defend the Christian doctrine from the attacks of heretics. Irenaeus of Lyons, to take a well-known example, enumerates the historical succession of the bishops of Rome in order to prove the historical connection of the Christian Church with the apostles Peter and Paul. Irenaeus himself, according to his testimony, is a disciple of Polcarp, and he, in turn, was a disciple of the Apostle John. Heretics (gnostics) could not boast of this.

The fact that the apostle Paul and Peter were the first bishops of Rome is doubtful. Both Peter and Paul were not bishops in the sense that arose in the Church through the work of Ignatius of Antioch. First, they were apostles whose job it was to plant new churches and preach the gospel to new nations. Secondly, Paul could not be the first bishop of Rome, as Irenaeus believes, since there was already a Christian community in Rome before his arrival (this is evident from his Epistle to the Romans, from which it is obvious that the apostle was not familiar with the Roman church). And, as a continuation of the logic of Irenaeus, there already existed its own “bishop”. It is unlikely that Peter, being the "apostle of the Jews," could have been the leader of the Roman community, which consisted of Gentiles (see Galatians 2:7). Thirdly, the episcopacy in the early Church, in the understanding of Ignatius, is an anachronistic phenomenon. The fact that in the church of Ignatius there was monarchical the episcopate (that is, at the head of the church of presbyters and deacons there is “one head” - the bishop) does not yet prove that all the churches of that time had a similar structure. There is evidence in the writings of other Apostolic Fathers that churches were headed by several presbyters (Clement of Rome, Didache 15:1 and Shepherd Hermas 13:1). Those. according to them, as well as the teaching of the New Testament ( Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1.2; Tit 1:5,7; Philip. 1:1), the bishop, presbyter, and shepherd are all one person.

The monarchical episcopate, in which the Church is headed by a bishop, and below him are priests (presbyters) and deacons, had a relatively rapid development in the Christian Church. The explanation for this lies in the fact that the Church, spreading in the Roman Empire, quickly adopted the Roman administrative system. So, it is much more prestigious to occupy the pastoral ministry in the capital even in the Protestant denomination. Therefore, the role of the ministers who headed the pulpits in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch was much greater than that of the ministers in other cities.

According to the Baptist view, Jesus did not teach such a thing as "apostolic succession." Moreover, Jesus never personally ordained any of His disciples. Nor do we see any such evidence in the New Testament of apostles ordination of bishops. The Apostle Paul ordained elders, and always several. You can hardly see a bishop in Timothy. Paul writes that he was ordained by "a group of elders" and not even by him personally (1 Tim. 4:14, the New Version uses the word "priesthood," which is a corruption of the original Greek). According to the canons (Canon of the Holy Apostles 1:2), a bishop must be ordained by two or three other bishops.

Having considered the difficulties associated with the concept of "apostolic succession", we now argue that under continuity with the early Church, Baptists understand continuity in the teaching of God's Word. Neither the sacraments, nor the historicity of ordinations, nor anything else is a guarantee of the "Christianity" of any church. Only faithful obedience to the Word of God is what makes a group of people children of God, called (i.e., made by the Church, see Greek ekklesia, “church”) under the leadership of the Chief Shepherd Jesus Christ.

), through whom even now all the fullness of grace received by the Church on the day of Pentecost is transmitted: “ across the laying on of hands of the apostles the Holy Spirit is served" (). “Do not neglect what is in you gifting given to you... with the laying on of hands of the priesthood »(). The apostles continued to command that this gift of the priesthood be passed on to worthy successors: "That's why I left you in Crete, so that you could complete the unfinished and appointed presbyters in all the cities» (); « Lay hands on no one hastily"(). By the end of the first century, the Christian communities of all more or less significant cities were led by ordained apostles. presbyters, which were bearers of the fullness of the apostolic grace received on the day of Pentecost.

1) Jerusalem Local Church founded on the day of Pentecost, at the moment of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles (). The first bishop of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church is the Apostle James, who is also the author of the first rite of the Liturgy, which is still served in the Jerusalem Orthodox Church.

2) Antioch Local Church founded by the apostles Peter and Paul.

3) Alexandria Local Church founded by the apostle Mark in 42.

4) Constantinople Local Church, was founded in the year 37 in the city of Byzantium by the apostle Andrew, who ordained the bishop of the apostle Stachy, who was on the cathedra from 38 to 54 (). He, in turn, ordained Onesimus in 54–68. Bishop Onesimus ordained Polycarp in 68–70, and so on through 20 centuries. Now the 179th bishop from the holy apostles is Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill.

5) Roman Local Church founded by the apostle Peter.

6) Russian Local Church:
In the year 37, the Apostle Andrew founded the Church in the city of Byzantium and ordained the bishop of the Apostle Stachy, who was in the pulpit from 38 to 54. “Greet Urban, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachy, my beloved” (). He, in turn, ordained Onesimus (54-68). Bishop Onesimus ordained Polycarp (68-70). and so on through 20 centuries:

In 1054 one of five Local Churches - the Roman Church, having distorted the apostolic doctrine of the Trinity and introduced this heresy into the Creed, fell away from the One Apostolic Universal Church, falling under the anathema of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1: 8-9)

The apostolic succession of the priesthood is one of the foundations for the historical churches (Orthodox and Catholic).

This principle means that a true bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ is only one who can show the continuity of his ordination directly from the apostles. It is based on the principle of the effectiveness of the sacraments, the faithfulness of the teachings of the Church, and also the spiritual power to "bind and loose." The principle of succession arises in the Church quite early - already Irenaeus of Lyon (II century) and Tertullian (III century) appeal to it. Later, this approach is fixed in canonical documents and becomes the principle by which the true church differs from the untrue. And yet, there are reasons to believe that this principle is not the only true one. God is not obligated to follow what is established by man.

The Meaning of the Priesthood

The priest is the one who stands between God and man. Its task is to represent people before God, on the one hand, and to reveal God to people, on the other. Even before the conclusion of the Covenant with Israel, we see examples of priests: Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God (Genesis, 14 chapter), Jethro, the priest of Midian (Exodus, 2 chapter). The real revolution takes place the moment God brings the people out of Egypt. God addresses the people of Israel with these words:
... you saw what I did to the Egyptians, and how I carried you [as it were] on eagles' wings, and brought you to Me; Therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you will be mine among all peoples, for all the earth is mine, and you will be with me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; these are the words that you will speak to the children of Israel. (Ex. 19:4-6)

In other words, God introduces the principle, later called "the principle of the universal priesthood": every Israelite is called to stand before God, and the whole nation is a priest for the rest of the nations of the earth. The whole nation is called, therefore, to be an intercessor before God for the whole earth, for all other peoples, and also to bring them the knowledge of the True God. In this way the priestly and missionary callings of the people of God are established and bound together. After a long time, the apostle Peter repeats this statement in relation to the Church:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy people, a people taken as an inheritance in order to proclaim the perfections of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light; once not a people, but now the people of God; [once] unpardoned, but now pardoned. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

So, we must remember that the people of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, are a priest before God. We have the responsibility to intercede before God for the whole earth, and also the mission to carry the Gospel to other people. But the principle of universal priesthood also includes the fact that every Christian comes to God directly, that there is no need for any intermediaries between man and God. This applies to people as well as rituals or material objects. God calls each of us to a personal relationship with Him, to direct fellowship. He wants us to talk to Him, He wants to answer us! And, if in the Old Testament for this it was necessary to perform a certain ritual, make a sacrifice, etc., then in the times of the New Testament, the basis for our meeting with God is the sacrifice of Christ:
So, brethren, having boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus Christ, the new and living way, which He again revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh ... (Heb. 10:19-20)

But we see that, in both the Old and New Testaments, God sets aside a portion of God's people for special service before Him. In the Old Testament, these people are directly called priests, in the New, several names are used: deacons, presbyters, bishops, as well as apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers ... And when the principle of succession is discussed, we are talking about just these, especially separated, people.

Aaron and Melchizedek

Scripture tells us of two principles, two approaches to priestly service. In Hebrews, these approaches are called "the priesthood after the order of Aaron" and "the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek."
So, if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what need would there be for another priest to rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be named after the order of Aaron? (Heb. 7:11)

The Aaronic Priesthood is based on the hereditary principle. If the boy is a descendant of Aaron, he automatically becomes a priest. Of course, this happens at a certain age, accompanied by a certain rite in which the grace of the priesthood is transferred to him, but from the very beginning he is considered called to this service. This is the order God established in the Old Testament. And God worked through these priests even when they themselves were not faithful to God! A good example in this regard is Eli, who raised the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1-3 ch.), and Caiaphas, who prophesied about Christ (John 11:49-52). However, even in the Old Testament, God acted outside of the hierarchy established by Himself! The prophet Samuel, not only being from the descendants of Aaron, but also not from the tribe of Levi, in fact, also performed priestly functions. Prophet Elijah - too. They took upon themselves the offering of sacrifices, although it was directly written in the Law that this was the lot of only the sons of Aaron! Yes, and all the prophets were those who represented the people before God and brought to the people the knowledge of the one God. Those. they actually carried out the priestly service, if we understand it more broadly than just the priesthood in the Temple.

Apostolic succession is the New Testament equivalent of the Aaronic priesthood. Although there is no longer a hereditary priesthood here, there is no automatism that was in the Old Testament, but many signs have remained the same. The ministry of a priest is based not on his personal relationship with God, but on the grace of the priesthood, which is transmitted through the laying on of hands. Thanks to this grace, the priest has the right to celebrate the Eucharist, in which the miracle of the presence of Christ takes place, this grace gives him the basis to proclaim the remission of sins, etc. At the same time, the priest himself may at this moment be far from being in the best relationship with God - God will judge him for this, but this in no way reduces the effectiveness of the sacraments performed by this priest, since this effectiveness is based on the faithfulness of God, and not the personality of a person. Perhaps that is how it is. God can act in this way, although the history of the Church is full of examples of terrible apostasy of hierarchs. And personally, it is difficult for me to imagine that the grace of the priesthood worked through such people. After all, even in the Old Testament we have examples of how God removed apostates and all their offspring from the priesthood (in fact, all priestly families, with the exception of the sons of Zadok: Ezek.40:46; 44:10-16).
But just as there are priests “after the order of Aaron,” so there are priests “after the order of Melchizedek.” The Melchizedek Priesthood was not based on the principle of succession, it came from the personal call of God:
And this is even more clearly seen [from the fact] that in the likeness of Melchizedek another Priest arises, Who is such not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh, but according to the power of unceasing life. For it is testified: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:15-17)
As already mentioned, in the Old Testament this role was performed by the prophets. In the history of the Church of the New Testament, saints, elders, and mystics acted as such "priests". Their ministry did not require official recognition and ordination, often they deliberately avoided it. However, their authority was often higher than that of the hierarchy, as the work of God in their lives was also linked to their personal relationship with God. They really knew God personally, and therefore could give people a much deeper understanding of the ways of God than those in whom only the outward grace of the priesthood worked.

Priesthood of Paul

There is a clear example of this kind of ministry in the New Testament: the apostle Paul. He was not among the Twelve. He was not at all among the disciples of the Lord when Jesus was on earth. The apostles, in choosing to replace Judas, gave very clear principles for apostolate:
Therefore, it is necessary that one of those who were with us all the time that the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us, from the baptism of John until the day in which He was taken up from us ... (Acts 1:21-22)
Paul clearly does not meet these requirements! When God calls him, then, in his own words:
But when God, who had chosen me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might proclaim His gospel to the Gentiles, I did not then consult with flesh and blood, and did not go to Jerusalem to the Apostles who preceded me, but went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Gal. 1:15-17)

He does not seek to be recognized by the people for his ministry. He is looking for something else: to understand what He who called him expects from him! Then the apostles recognize his apostleship (not immediately), but for Paul it was obvious from the very beginning. He preaches the gospel not because he received a sanction for this from people, but because he met with Christ and can no longer help preaching the gospel!
The priesthood is based on the same principle in the evangelical churches. A person becomes a minister, a pastor, a teacher because he has experienced God's call to this ministry. Responding by faith to this call, a person receives both grace to perform this ministry and the necessary gifts for its fulfillment. In ordination, the Church testifies that there really is God's call in the life of this person, as well as his readiness to fulfill this ministry. Here is an example from the New Testament:
In Antioch, in the church there, there were some prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon, called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manail, a fellow student of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then they, after fasting and praying, laid their hands on them, and let them go. (Acts 13:1-3)

Paul (then still Saul) and Barnabas had already experienced the call to missionary service some time ago. But finally, the moment has come when the appropriate time has come, and the Church confirms this calling in ordination. Ordination is not exclusively human recognition. God acts in ordination, actualizing the vocation, gifts and talents necessary for service. However, the personal vocation is primary. Experience shows that if a person enters the ministry without receiving a personal call from the Lord, his ministry will not be long.
Thus, ministries in evangelical congregations are founded "according to the order of Melchizedek." The personal calling from the Lord, the gifts by which a person fulfills his ministry, the personal relationship with God necessary to bring to people the knowledge of God, and not just knowledge of Him - all this lies at the heart of ministry in evangelical churches. This is a feature of the evangelical movement, and we do not need to look for evidence of apostolic succession. Just as Paul did not seek to ensure that his ministry was necessarily recognized by the Twelve.

The early Church could accommodate a variety of gifts and ministries. There was an apostolic core, but there were also charismatic ministers: prophets, evangelists, teachers. The unity of the Church was ensured by no means by a hierarchical structure, which did not yet exist, but by the action of the Holy Spirit among the disciples of Christ. Therefore, the Church was able to accommodate the apostolate of Paul, which was radically different both in call and in the form of service. And not only recognize, but also put him on the same level with Peter, about whom the Lord Himself said: "On this rock I will build My Church." The tradition, calling Peter and Paul together "chief apostles", thus testifies to the importance for the Church of both one principle of the priesthood and the other. And the combination of these principles just gave the Church that fullness, which allowed her "with great power to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ." The recognition of Paul's apostleship by other apostles testifies to their wisdom, which, unfortunately, is lacking in modern hierarchs. Because by denying the evangelical movement membership in the Church, they weaken the Church as a whole. Peter, James, and John at one time “gave the hand of fellowship to Barnabas and Paul,” without requiring them to change or accept ordination from them. Can historic churches do it today?

IV. APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

1. The doctrine of apostolic succession should be the subject of special study. I dwell on it only in order to clarify its connection with the doctrine of the high priesthood of a bishop. Speaking about the connection of these teachings, it should not be presented in such a way that one is the cause of the other. It would be more correct to speak, as I have already noted, of the interaction of these teachings. The doctrine of apostolic succession finally shaped the doctrine of the high priesthood of bishops, but in turn the doctrine of the high priesthood consolidated the doctrine of apostolic succession.

Remaining true to the position I have previously expressed, I do not consider it possible to accept the view, which is very widespread at the present time, that the doctrine of apostolic succession arose at a certain historical moment under the influence of a number of reasons, for the most part lying outside the church. At best, Gnosticism could only give impetus to the formulation of this doctrine. The core of this teaching was contained in the Church from the very beginning, but the forms of this teaching naturally changed in the history of its development.

2. The idea of ​​the succession of ministries and persons performing them was very common in the ancient world, both pagan and Jewish. We have no reason to believe that it did not exist from the very beginning in the Church. Tradition was the basis of life in the early church. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…” (1 Corinthians 11:23). “For I first gave you what I received…” (1 Corinthians 15:3). The succession of tradition was a habitual thought for Paul, since he himself had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel before conversion (Acts 22:3). The idea of ​​the tradition's succession includes the idea of ​​the succession of persons who are the keepers of the tradition. And this idea was familiar to Paul from childhood, because he was brought up in it by Gamaliel. For Paul, the bearers of the original tradition were the twelve, in particular Peter. Believing that the coming of Christ would find him alive, Paul might not have been particularly concerned in the beginning to ensure the continuity of what he had passed on to the churches. This does not in the least undermine the fact of the succession of the tradition during the life of Paul: from the twelve to Paul, and from him to the churches he founded. When the threat of death hung over Paul, the succession of tradition began to disturb him more. “Watch therefore, remembering that for three years I taught every one of you day and night with tears” (Acts 20:31). The idea of ​​the succession of persons, bearers of tradition, appears most clearly in the Pastoral Epistles. “And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit it to faithful people (pistoij anqrwpoij), who will be able to teach others also” (II Tim. 2:2). The doctrine of the faith was transmitted by the apostle to the churches, and in them it must be preserved intact through the succession and succession (diadoch) of persons entrusted with the guardianship of the doctrine. Such, at any rate, is the meaning of this difficult-to-interpret verse of 2 Timothy.

3. The idea of ​​"diadoch" was not only contained in the Church, but was even contained in several forms, in which different persons acted as carriers of the succession.

For Clement of Alexandria, the didascalus was such a person. In "Hypotyposes" he says that "after His resurrection, the Lord communicated the gnosis to James the Righteous, John and Peter, and they passed it on to the other apostles, the rest of the seventy, of whom one was Barnabas." True gnosis, originating from Christ himself, is transmitted through the apostles from one didaskal to another, and in one part it remains secret and is transmitted secretly. We cannot admit that Clement was the only representative of the doctrine of the succession of the didascals in the great church. The Epistle of Barnabas, to which Clement refers, certainly contains this teaching. However, the doctrine of the didascali, as the guardians of the apostolic tradition, did not survive in the church, not only because of a somewhat suspicious similarity with the Gnostic sects, but also because there were no solid foundations for it in the original church. With Origen, this teaching is less clear, and in general it is very softened in order to guard against false gnosis. Nevertheless, we also find in him the doctrine of the spiritual hierarchy, the hierarchy of the Word, of which the didascalus is a representative, and which he opposed to the church hierarchy. The true bishop for him is the one who possessed the gnosis, and not the one who occupied the first place in the church assembly.

Apparently, among the Montanists there was a doctrine of the succession of the prophetic ministry. This appears quite clearly from a text in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. It is curious to note that some Orthodox opponents of Montanism did not deny the doctrine of the continuity of the prophetic ministry, but only questioned whether the Montanistic prophets could prove the continuity of their ministry. So, Miltiades, according to Eusebius, wrote: “If Montanus’ women received the gift of prophecy, as they say, successively after Codrates and Ammia of Philadelphia, then let them show which of them themselves was the successor of Montanus and his women.” This statement is very curious, because it shows what meaning "diadoch" had in the eyes of the Orthodox, but it could have such a meaning only if it was present in the Church itself. On the other hand, the words of Miltiades do not prove that the Church contained the doctrine of the succession of the ministry of the prophets. We have no instructions for this. This is not even mentioned by Irenaeus of Lyons, who, as is known, did not take an extreme position in relation to Montanism.

The Church could not accept the teaching on the "diadoch" of either the didascalians or the prophets, since it had the teaching on the "diadoch" of the presbyters-bishops contained in the very teaching on the Church. The first teachings were secondary to the teaching on the "diadoch" of presbyter-bishops, and no doubt arose later. They presuppose the doctrine of the universal church, which was not contained in the original ecclesiastical consciousness. It was impossible to establish the doctrine of the succession of the didascals or prophets within the local church, since not all local churches always had one or the other. In them, not only could there be a break in the succession of didascals or prophets, but in fact it did occur: one didaskal did not successively follow another, just as one prophet did not follow another. The local church could not keep their succession, since the care of these ministries did not lie with her. If the prophetic or teaching ministry in her ceased due to the death or departure of the prophet or teacher, she could not put others in their place so that new faces would take over the ministry of the old. It is possible to establish the succession of these persons only with a certain chance within the Church in general, independently of local churches. This point of view was supported by Miltiades, whom we quoted above. Clement of Alexandria proceeded from the concept of "spiritual church", asserting the succession of the didascals. As a result of the doctrine of the universal church, the “treasury of faith” was entrusted not to the Church, but to individuals, which in turn favored the emergence of a secret gnosis. The universal Church cannot have its empirical expression, and therefore it cannot be the guardian of tradition. The "treasury of faith" is entrusted to the Catholic Church, which is fully revealed in every local Church.

4. Before proceeding to the study of the doctrine of the succession of presbyters-bishops, it should be noted that this doctrine had two forms. In the first form, the doctrine of succession is expressed in the fact that the ministry of presbyter-bishops, appointed by the apostles or other persons authorized to do so, does not stop in the local church, but continues uninterruptedly: some presbyter-bishops intercede for others, so that an uninterrupted chain of persons is formed. performing the same ministry. The second form differs from the first in that the apostles not only appointed the first bishops, but also transferred to them their ministry, which continues to be preserved in the Church through an unbroken chain of bishops. In this form, the "diadoch" of the bishops has only an instrumental role, since through it the apostolic ministry is preserved. These forms are not mutually exclusive, for the idea of ​​transferring service is not entirely absent from the first form. The difference between them is not in this idea, but in what exactly was transmitted by the apostles.

The first positive reference to the "diadoch" of bishops is found in the Epistle of Clement of Rome. But this is only an indication, and not an exposition of the doctrine of the succession of bishops-presbyters. Clement did not set such a task for himself. "Diadoch" was for Clement one of the arguments that should not replace the presbyters-bishops, impeccably fulfilling their ministry. If the doctrine of "diadoch" was used by Clement as an argument, then this indicates that it was contained in the church's consciousness, and was not his personal idea.

Let us try to determine the content of the teachings expounded by Clement. It contains three main theses. First thesis: Christ is sent from God (Ihsouj Cristoj apo tou Qeou). Second thesis: Christ is from God and the apostles are from Christ; one and the other flow harmoniously from the will of God (‘O Cristoj oun apo tou Qeou kai oi apostoloi apo tou Cristou egeonto oun amfotera eutaktwj ec qelhmatoj Qeou). There is some parallelism between these theses, but what exactly is it? It is unlikely that Clement could think about the parallelism of the ministry of Christ and the apostles. The apostles are clothed with the ministry of Christ, that is, the source of the ministry of the apostles lies in Christ, just as the ministry of Christ rests in God. But one and the other ascends to God, since everything proceeds from His will. This is where the parallelism ends. The third thesis of Clement is as follows: the apostles, instructed by Christ after His resurrection and faithful to the word of God, having been clothed with the power of the spirit for their service, went to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Preaching in countries and cities, they supplied the firstfruits of believers after being tested in the spirit to become bishops and deacons for those who would be believers. The ministry of the apostles was to build local churches, not to convert individuals to Christianity. The last task lay with the churches they formed. In order to build up churches, the apostles supplied the first principles of believers to the bishops, because without the ministry of bishops, local churches cannot exist. It is not difficult to see that between the first and second thesis, on the one hand, and the third, there is a certain "hiatus". It would not exist if Clement's third thesis read: the bishops are from the apostles. It just couldn't be. The apostles could not clothe the bishops with ministry, as they themselves were clothed by Christ. No matter how high the position of the apostles in the Church and no matter how exclusive their ministry, the source of the ministry of bishops, as well as of all ministries in general, lay not in them, but in God through the Spirit. Therefore, the third thesis includes the idea that not only the apostles, but also the bishops are from Christ, but through Christ from God. Therefore, despite some "hiatus", all three theses are internally interconnected.

Having established the first link of “diadoch”, Clement proceeds to his second main position: “And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention about episcopal dignity. For this very reason, having received perfect foresight, they appointed the aforesaid persons and then added the law, so that when they rest, other tested men would take over their service. Therefore, we consider it unjust to deprive those who were appointed by the apostles themselves or after them by other revered men with the consent of the church, and who served the flock of Christ irreproachably, with humility, meekly and blamelessly, and, moreover, for a long time received approval from everyone. Although this passage from Clement is exceedingly difficult to interpret, its general meaning is quite clear.

The chain of "diadoch" must not be interrupted in the Church. After the deceased bishops appointed by the apostles, other persons must accept their ministry. This is an immutable law of the life of the Church, arising from her very nature. There cannot be a local church without a Eucharistic assembly, and there cannot be an assembly without an elder presbyter. Any break in their ministry would mean a break in the existence of the local church. "Diadoch" guards not only the succession of the ministry of bishops, but also its charismatic character. The first primates were tested in the Spirit (dokimasantej tw pneumati) Their successors must also be tested (dedokimasmenoi) and appointed with the good will of the whole church. In the Spirit and through the Spirit the apostles were appointed to their ministry, in the Spirit and through the Spirit the apostles appointed the first bishops, and in the Spirit and through the Spirit, with the good will of the whole church, their successors should be appointed. Clement of Rome clearly emphasizes the charismatic character of not only the apostolic, but also the episcopal ministry. Because of this, it is very risky to talk, as is customary, about the institutional nature of the ministry of the apostles and bishops in Clement. The contrast between the institutional and charismatic nature of ministries in the original church is in most cases a misunderstanding of the nature of ministries. The apostles were established by Christ, but became apostles on the day of Pentecost, as Clement himself speaks of (meta plhroforiaj pneumatoj). Bishops were ordained apostles, but the purpose of the appointment was to bestow the gifts of the Spirit on those who were ordained by God.

This is the general meaning of the above passage from the letter of Clement. In interpreting this passage, we must not lose sight of the fact that Clement's task was not at all to convince the Corinthian church to accept the doctrine of the "diadoch". It was absolutely indisputable both for the Roman and for the Cornifian church. The persons who made a disturbance in the Corinthian church did not, of course, think that they were violating the letter of the law concerning the “diadoch” of presbyter-bishops. They did not intend to replace, permanently or temporarily, the ministry of presbyters with another ministry, for example, prophetic, as we find in the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles." They wanted to replace some presbyters with others, without violating the succession of their ministry through this. Therefore, there was no need for Clement to justify the doctrine of "diadoch". If so, what exactly did Clement want to prove? From the context of chapter 42 of his epistle, it is clear that the emphasis is not so much on "diadoch" as on the fact that some presbyters should take the place of others. The commandment or command given by the apostles did not refer to the establishment of the "diadoch" of bishops, but to the order in which bishops were replaced. Since the apostles knew through Jesus Christ that there would be strife regarding the bishopric, i.e., since they knew that the order of replacing bishops would be violated, they prescribed that new bishops should only take the places of the deceased. Therefore, the removal of bishops who perform their ministry without blemish is a violation of the commandment of the apostles. The sin of the Corinthians was not that they rejected the "diadoch", but that they disturbed the order within the "diadoch" itself.

The doctrine of the "diadoch" of bishops includes the idea of ​​the succession of their ministry. Through the appointment, one bishop receives the ministry from another. Can we assert on this basis that the bishops appointed by the apostles accepted their ministry? Apostleship, as already indicated above, was an exceptional phenomenon, and, as such, has no succession at all. Therefore bishops cannot be considered successors of the apostles in the sense that one bishop is the successor of another. We do not find this thought in Clement. For Clement, the ministry of presbyter bishops and the ministry of apostles were special ministries. The confusion of these ministries would be a violation of the will of God, since it does not consist in the confusion of ministries, but in their diversity. Succession can only be in the field of homogeneous ministries, and not in heterogeneous ones. By themselves, heterogeneous ministries exclude the idea of ​​succession. If the ministry of the apostles were to have succession, then their successors would be the apostles, not the bishops. Church consciousness began to consider the elders as bishops, which was quite legitimate, since they really accepted their ministry, but it never considered bishops as apostles. However, this answer does not exhaust the entire question, but only one part of it. But before moving on to a further consideration of the issue, it is necessary to summarize what is contained on the issue of "diadoch" in Clement. The beginning of the ministry of bishops lay in the apostles who appointed the first bishops, whose ministry should continue uninterruptedly in local churches. The order and order that lies in the will of God must be preserved in the Church, and this order must be observed in the "diadoch" of the bishops. It is expressed in the fact that others take the place of the deceased bishops.

5. The apostles ordained the firstfruits of believers as bishops and deacons. Church consciousness attached great importance to this fact, because through it the connection between the ministry of bishops-presbyters and the ministry of the apostles was established. Luke specifically speaks about the appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas: “And having ordained elders for them in every church, they (i.e., Barnabas and Paul) prayed with fasting, and handed them over to the Lord in whom they believed” (Acts 14:23). Whether or not Clement of Rome depended on Luke is of no particular importance, since the appointment of the firstfruits of believers as bishops was a living tradition of the Church, which underlies its entire ecclesiastical organization. In view of the significance of this fact, it is necessary to correctly understand its meaning. We must resolutely reject the idea that the appointment of the firstfruits of believers as bishops was an individual act of the apostles, arising from their authority. School teaching, under the influence of individualism that has penetrated the life of the Church, understands this precisely in this way. Based on an incidental opinion of Jerome, it regards the power of ordination as the exclusive prerogative of the episcopal office. The ancient church life did not know our modern individualism. The ordinance was an ecclesiastical, and not an individual act of anyone. We must not imagine that the apostles, preaching in countries and cities, installed the first believers as bishops and deacons, and then formed a local church. Ordination cannot take place outside the church, since the ordinance is an ecclesiastical act that postulates the existence of the church. If there is a setting, then there is a local church, and if it does not exist, then there is no setting. The apostles supplied the firstfruits of believers to the bishops not outside the local churches, but in them. But how were these churches formed? As the Church of God was actualized on Peter in the first Eucharistic assembly, so the local churches were realized on the apostles. The realization of the local church was the realization in it of the ministry of primacy. The local church was formed when the apostle, together with the firstfruits of the believers, celebrated the first Eucharist in it. The appointment of bishops took place in the Eucharistic Assembly of the local church. The ordained bishops occupied the same places on it that the apostles occupied in the first Eucharistic assemblies of the Jerusalem Church. In particular, the elder presbyter occupied the place that the apostle, who celebrated the first Eucharist in it, held before him. Celebrating the first Eucharist, the apostle was its first primate in the local church. Topologically, the ministry of the presbyters, and especially the elder presbyter, was a continuation of the ministry of the apostles. The presbyters appointed by the apostles received from them ministry of primacy. It was one of the functions of the apostolate, but it was not their special ministry. It becomes a special ministry of the bishops appointed by the apostles. Therefore, accepting from the apostles the office of primacy, the bishops were not the successors of their office of apostolate, but only the successors of their place in the Eucharistic Assembly.

The connection between apostolate and episcopacy lies not only in the fact that the apostles appointed the first bishops, but also in the fact that the latter received the office of primacy from the apostles. Thus, the "diadoch" of bishops is an unbroken chain of bishops' ministries, beginning with the first appointed by the apostles, from whom he received the office of primacy. In this sense, the apostles belong to the diadoch chain of bishops.

6. It is commonly believed that in the epistles of Ignatius we find no indication of the doctrine of the succession of bishops. Moreover, the epistles of Ignatius are used as proof that the first ideologue of the episcopal ministry known to us knew nothing about it. This kind of opinion seems very suspicious. Indeed, how could the Roman Church refer to the doctrine of "diadoch" if it was not already generally accepted. But did Ignatius really know nothing about him? He did not speak directly about him, because the tasks that he set for himself did not require this. He strove to establish in the church consciousness the unity of the elder presbyter, who became a bishop on the basis of the pontifical ministry. The doctrine of the "diadoch", in the form in which it was contained in his time, did not give him a decisive argument to establish in the church consciousness the transformation of the elder presbyter into a bishop. Nevertheless, the letters of Ignatius give the right to assert that he knew about him. The topological doctrine of the succession of bishops-presbyters from the apostles should have been close and understandable to Ignatius, since he himself topologically constructed his doctrine of the high priesthood of a bishop. We find indications of this in his epistles. Above we said how to understand the statement of Ignatius that the presbytery takes the place of the council of the apostles. He was probably thinking at the same time about the first Eucharistic meetings of the Jerusalem Church, in which the apostles constituted, in a certain sense, a council under St. Peter, and about the Last Supper of Christ, where all of them were a cathedral under Christ. But he unwittingly brought to the fore the picture of the Last Supper in connection with his teaching on the bishop. In the same Jerusalem church, the presbyters, having been ordained apostles, took their places at its Eucharistic assembly. It would be wrong on this basis to assume that Ignatius affirmed only the topological apostolic succession of presbyters. We must not forget that the era of Ignatius was a transitional one. The oldest presbyter who became a bishop was distinguished from the presbyters, but did not stand out from the presbytery. He occupied a special place within him, just as he occupied a special place in the Eucharistic Assembly. By affirming the topological succession of presbyters, he thereby further affirmed the apostolic succession of the oldest presbyter who became a bishop. The topological high priesthood of a bishop does not in the least contradict this. This can be proved by the fact that in the future the high priesthood turned out to be connected with the doctrine of apostolic succession.

7. According to Clement of Rome, "diadoch" refers to all bishops-presbyters, including even deacons, but in fact, of course, it refers to the oldest of them, since in him and through him it found its expression. If our conjecture is correct, then, as we have seen, the whole epistle of Clement was due to the fact that among the displaced was the oldest presbyter.

When the Church consciousness tried to concretely express the general teaching about the succession of presbyters-bishops in a succession of names, it naturally stopped only at the names of the oldest presbyters. Church memory could not keep the names of all the presbyters. In addition, it was impossible to establish the sequence of the ministry of individual presbyters, since it was impossible to determine which presbyter in the presbytery takes the place of another. In a different position were the elder presbyters: they were always precisely defined persons, successively interceding for one another. The succession of the oldest presbyter ensured the succession of all the others. Sooner or later there was bound to be a need for the compilation of succession lists. Naturally, only the oldest presbyters were included in these lists. It is difficult to assume that Hegesippus was the first to draw up lists of succession, but, apparently, he was the first to draw up such a list for the Roman Church. “While in Rome, I compiled a list of succession before Aniceta, of which Eleutherius was a deacon. Sotir followed Anikita, and Eleutherius followed him. In every succession and in every city (en ekasth de diadoch kai en ekasth polei) everything went on as the law, the prophets and the Lord preach. It is impossible to form a complete picture of Hegesippus's teaching on "diadoch" on the basis of a short quotation from Eusebius. Refusing to make any assumptions, we will limit ourselves to what the quotation contains. Hegesippus clearly indicates that he compiled a list of the succession of the Roman Church. As regards the rest of the churches, Hegesippus' statement that there is this kind of succession in every church is his conclusion. It is quite legitimate, since the teaching itself was contained in church tradition, but it is unlikely that it has found its concrete expression in all Churches. The list of the Roman Church compiled by Hegesippus ends with Eleutherius. should we consider that at the head of the list was ap. Peter? This is doubtful, since the "diadoch" of Hegesippus meant only the succession of the office of the oldest presbyters or bishops, without any indication that through this succession the ministry of the apostles is preserved. At the stage in which the doctrine of the "diadoch" was in the era of Hegesippus, especially in the Roman Church, it could not include the apostles, since the apostles were not considered as the elder presbyters. If indeed Hegesippus compiled lists of succession, besides the Roman Church, for other churches, then in them he could not always put at the beginning the name of some apostle.

The second half of the second century was a turning point for the doctrine of the succession of bishops. The "hiatus" that we found in Clement of Rome in his teaching on the "diadoch" was gradually filled with the high-priestly office of the bishop. When the idea arose in the church consciousness that Christ endowed the apostles with this ministry, a specific connection was found between the high priestly ministry of Christ and the bishops: Christ entrusted the high priesthood to the apostles, and the latter, appointing bishops, transferred this ministry to them. At the same time, a missing link was found in the doctrine of "diadoch" between apostles and bishops. The doctrine of the succession of bishops passes into the doctrine of apostolic succession. This could happen all the more easily since the connection between apostolate and the ministry of bishops was recognized from the very beginning. The topological succession of bishops turns into a concrete apostolic succession. The apostles, founding churches, were the first high priests in them, and therefore they could be placed at the head of the lists of the succession of bishops. Each bishop in his local church is a specific successor to the apostles.

Irenaeus stands on the verge between the topological and concrete doctrine of apostolic succession, but with a bias towards the latter. According to Irenaeus, bishops are "ab apostolis institute" and "successionem habent ab apostolis". How did Irenaeus understand "successionem habent ab apostolis"? We have no reason to believe that Irenaeus was unaware of the doctrine of the high-priestly ministry of bishops. But he did not put forward the high priesthood of bishops, but their teaching. This was dictated by the tasks of combating the pseudo-nominal gnosis, which he set for himself. The "treasury of the faith" is entrusted to the churches, but is guarded by the bishops, since they receive "charisma veritatis certum" when placed. They are witnesses and guardians of the tradition descending from the apostles, since each bishop successively through the apostles receives the charisma of fidelity to the apostolic tradition. This charism is the main content of the succession of bishops from the apostles. If you look at the teaching of Irenaeus on succession exclusively from this side, then his teaching is in contact with the teaching on the “diadoch” of the didascals of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but with the essential difference that the carriers of the “diadoch” are not the didascals, but the presbyters who were appointed by the apostles and to whom the apostles gave churches. Therefore, the succession of bishops from the apostles is a guarantee of the truth of the faith contained in the Churches ruled by bishops, since in these churches the “charisma veritatis” has not ceased. Because of this, the lists of bishops acquire great significance for Irenaeus. Irenaeus pointed out that for each local church he could make such a list, but this was not necessary. The list of one Roman church is enough, "maximae, et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae, a glorissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae". By virtue of this special position of the Roman Church, each church must harmonize its teaching with it: "necesse est ad hanc ecclesiam convenire omnem ecclesiam." However, it seems that Irenaeus did not yet have a completely distinct consciousness that Peter and Paul, who founded the Roman Church, were its bishops. However, the idea of ​​succession from the apostles is clear to him. Through the appointment of the first bishop or first bishops, the apostles gave them "charisma veritatis". They are their successors in the field of teaching and guarding church tradition, but teaching could not be isolated from the high priesthood.

It must have been regarded by Irenaeus as a function of the primacy with which the high priesthood was associated. Topological succession clearly leans towards concrete succession.

The Roman Church accepted the doctrine of the succession of Irenaeus, since it actually probably existed in it, and finally formulated it on the basis of the high priesthood of bishops, which includes teaching and guarding the faith. In this form we find the teaching of succession in Hippolytus of Rome. The apostles were the first to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which the bishops possess, as their successors (didacoi) who received from them the high priesthood and teaching (arcierateiaj te kai didaskaliaj). It is hardly possible to consider that this teaching was the personal theology of Hippolytus. Rather, Hippolytus formulated what he found in the Roman Church and what Pope Victor, and then the opponent of Hippolytus, Pope Callistus, actually carried out. It is possible that Tertullian, another adversary of Callistus, contributed in no small way to the final formulation of the doctrine of apostolic succession. It is probably no coincidence that Tertullian called Callistus "pontifex maximus", but it is difficult to rely on Tertullian in view of the passion of his character and the extreme polemical nature of his writings. If Tertullian is left aside, then Hippolytus is the most faithful witness to the fact that the doctrine of apostolic succession was formed on the basis of the doctrine of high priesthood. Henceforth, in dogmatic teaching, the high priesthood of a bishop includes his apostolic succession, and the latter presupposes the former. This fully corresponds to the historical development of the doctrine of apostolic succession and of the high-priestly office of a bishop.

8. This concludes our study of the conversion of an elder presbyter to a bishop. All further content of the episcopal ministry develops on the basis of apostolic succession, which includes the high priesthood and teaching. We needed the first pages of the history of this process as an argument in favor of the correctness of the initial structure of the church described by us. We were looking for its beginning in the Church itself, and not outside it, proceeding from the fact that in the Church nothing can arise from nothing, since everything in it has its roots in its past, even if even this past was removed by what went to it. for changing. We deliberately almost did not talk about the influence of empirical factors on this process, since their influence in this era was extremely insignificant. Just as force must have a definite point of application in order to be able to act, so empirical factors must have their point of application in the Church in order to influence church life. This point of application for empirical factors was in what the Church contained in itself and developed from itself. Our task was to show that the starting point for the emergence of the episcopal ministry was in the Church itself. It did not arise at a certain historical moment, as something completely new, not contained in the Church. Potentially, the original church contained the foundations of this ministry, although it did not have it. She knew a single ministry of primates in the person of bishops-presbyters, who were led at the Eucharistic Assembly by the oldest of them.

Rethinking Apostolic Tradition There is no doubt that all the great churches of the Reformation developed their weighty tradition. This tradition today has a huge impact not only on how the church interprets Scripture and builds doctrine, but on the whole form and direction

15:14-22 25. Paul's apostolic ministry Paul begins with an expression of confidence to his Roman readers: And I myself am convinced of you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, full of all knowledge, and able to instruct one another... (14). It is obvious that he resorts here to the well-known and

25. Paul's apostolic ministry (p. 501) 1. What gives Paul the right to write in his chosen manner? Do contemporary Christian leaders bear any of the responsibility that

a. Apostolic teaching Paul edified the members of the church to "keep in the faith" (22) which they had received from him. Similar expressions are found in various places in the New Testament. This indicates that there was a certain doctrine, a system of basic beliefs, which was taught