Apostolic Succession #
New Ritualist: Even if your so-called church was right when it was without a bishop from Nikon until Ambrose, your current Belokrinitskaya hierarchy is still wrong because it lacks an unbroken line of apostolic ordination. Metropolitan Ambrose, from whom it originates, was, by your own admission, a heretic of the second rank before joining you. Apostolic succession in ordination ends with such heretics; therefore, your hierarchy is illegitimate and self-proclaimed.
It is known that Christ the Lord, having founded His Holy Church on earth, established and granted it a sacred hierarchy consisting of three ranks: bishop, priest, and deacon. To ensure that these hierarchical ranks were not self-appointed but chosen and sent for this great and holy service, Christ established ordination, or the laying on of hands, by which these hierarchical ranks are produced and which only bishops have the right to perform. For clarity and easy understanding, the succession of ordination can be likened to the succession of the human race: just as all humans are descended from one Adam by birth, so all priests and bishops are descended from one Christ by ordination. And just as each of us could trace our lineage continuously back to Adam if we had accurate genealogical records, so too can each bishop trace his ordination lineage back to Christ.
Now, please show us the uninterrupted succession of ordination of your hierarchy through only Orthodox bishops, continuously from Christ to Metropolitan Ambrose.
Old Ritualist: First, you should fulfill this requirement yourselves, and then you may demand it from us. Show us the succession of ordination in your church’s hierarchy through only Orthodox bishops from Christ to the present day, and we will do the same.
New Ritualist: We have no need to prove the succession of ordination of our hierarchy, because it is universally known that it goes uninterrupted from Christ Himself, through only Orthodox bishops.
Old Ritualist: I do not know who “universally” knows this. But history attests quite the opposite—that it is impossible to trace the succession of ordination of your bishops through only Orthodox bishops continuously back to Christ, for it must inevitably pass through heretics.
New Ritualist: And what proof do you have for this?
Old Ritualist: There is a book titled The Historical List of Bishops and Later Patriarchs of the Holy and Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, from 36 A.D. to 1834. It provides an unbroken succession of hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople from the Apostle Andrew. Among these successors, there are many heretics among the patriarchs of Constantinople, from whom the Russian Church also received its ordination and hierarchy. For example, from 355 to 359, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the heretic Macedonius (a Pneumatomachian); from 360 to 371, the Arian Eudoxius; from 371 to 379, the Arian Demophilus, ordained by Arians. Thus, for a full twenty years, the Constantinopolitan throne was held by heretics in succession. Later, from 428 to 431, the heretic Nestorius held the office; from 449 to 458, Anatolius, who was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 113); in 491, Flavitas, a heretic; from 639 to 641, the Monothelite Pyrrhus; from 641 to 655, the heretic Paul; from 655 to 667, the heretic Peter (see year 678); from 667 to 669, Thomas, ordained by heretics; from 669 to 674, Constantine, also ordained by heretics (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 119); from 711 to 714, the Monothelite John; from 730 to 754, the Iconoclast Anastasius; from 766 to 780, Nicetas, also an Iconoclast; from 815 to 821, the Iconoclast Theodotus; from 821 to 832, the Iconoclast Antony; from 832 to 842, John VII, also an Iconoclast; and many others.
From this simple list of the patriarchs of Constantinople, it is evident that many of them were heretics or were ordained by heretics. These heretical hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople sometimes held the throne in succession for several years, as we see not only in the list provided but also in the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where we find the following. When the question of whether to accept those ordained by heretics in their ranks was discussed, the president of the council, His Holiness Patriarch Tarasius, said, “Many of those gathered at the holy Sixth Council were certainly ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, teachers of the Monothelite heresy, since they successively occupied the see of Constantinople, and only fifteen years passed between Peter, who was the last to occupy the Constantinopolitan see, and the Sixth Council. Even the archbishops Thomas, John, and Constantine, who held the see during this period, were ordained by the heretics mentioned above, yet this was not held against them. That heresy lasted for fifty years. But the fathers of the Sixth Council anathematized only those four, even though they themselves were ordained by them.” The holy council said, “This is evident” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 7, p. 119). From this, it is clear that from Sergius, the heretical patriarch of Constantinople, to Thomas, heretics or those ordained by heretics held the Constantinopolitan throne continuously for fifty-seven years. And it was from this throne that, in 988, under Prince Vladimir, the Russian Church received its origin: it received baptism, ordination, and hierarchy.
Therefore, if ordination ceases with heretical bishops, then it ceased long before the baptism of Rus, and consequently, the ancient Russian Church itself received and held a discontinuous, invalid, and self-proclaimed ordination. And your New Ritualist church now has the same ordination, not that of Christ. This is your teaching, not ours, and this is where it leads you: according to your doctrine, which states that ordination ceases with heretics, you are obliged to admit that both the ancient Orthodox Church and your New Ritualist Church did not receive and do not hold a legitimate, uninterrupted succession of ordination. Or, if you abandon this view, you must recognize, in accordance with the teaching and practice of the ancient Orthodox Church, that apostolic succession does not cease or break even among heretical hierarchs. In this case, you must also recognize that the Old Believer Church holds an unbroken ordination, even if it passed for a time through heretical hierarchs.
New Ritualist: Why are you confusing me?! Well, let’s assume that at certain times in the Church of Constantinople, bishops were successively heretics for several years. History indeed proves this, and I will not argue against clear facts. But at the same time, in other parts of the universal church—such as in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, and elsewhere—there were many Orthodox bishops. Whereas you had none of these for a full 180 years. So, there was an unbroken succession of ordination there, but not with you. And therefore, your present Belokrinitskaya hierarchy did not receive nor possesses this succession.
Old Ritualist: Thank you. You have now admitted yourself that it is impossible for you to trace an unbroken line of ordination back to Christ through only Orthodox bishops. Yet you demand this of us.
New Ritualist: How have I agreed to that?
Old Ritualist: In this way: you know that our ancient Russian Orthodox Church, as well as your New Ritualist church, derived its hierarchy and ordination from the Patriarchs of Constantinople.
New Ritualist: I know that very well.
Old Ritualist: And yet, when it comes to them, you refuse to trace an unbroken line of ordination through only Orthodox bishops and instead turn in all directions—to Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, and so on. If you could trace this line of ordination through the Church of Constantinople alone, then why would you point to Alexandria, Rome, and other places? By pointing to these churches, you have admitted and confirmed that the Church of Constantinople did not have a continuous line of Orthodox bishops.
You yourself compared the succession of ordination to the lineage of the human race—that just as all people are descended from Adam by birth, so all priests and bishops are descended from Christ by ordination, and the laity by baptism. Just as anyone could trace their lineage back to Adam if they had accurate records of their ancestors, so any bishop can trace the lineage of his ordination continuously back to Christ. But tell me, can even a single person trace his genealogy back to Adam through only legitimate births?
New Ritualist: Of course not; no one can, because everyone, without a doubt, has many illegitimate ancestors. Even the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ includes many illegitimate births.
Old Ritualist: Exactly. Now the question is: does the lineage of the human race end with an illegitimate birth, making someone with illegitimate ancestors less human?
New Ritualist: Of course, it does not end.
Old Ritualist: In the same way, the succession of ordination is not interrupted when it passes through heretics of the second or third rank. But if there were someone foolish enough to claim that the succession of the human race ends with illegitimate birth, we would challenge them to trace their own lineage through only legitimate marriages and births; otherwise, they would have to consider themselves non-human. And if they replied, “Even though my ancestors were illegitimate, in other places there were legitimate marriages and births at that time,” what would you say to that? Is this an excuse, or does it only further accuse the one who answered in this way? The response would be, of course: we are not concerned with whether other people, unrelated to you, were legitimately born in other places. Show us that your own ancestors were legitimate. Only then would your answer be valid, and you would justify yourself.
The same applies to your position. You claim that apostolic succession ends with heretics of the second rank. Therefore, we require that you trace the succession of ordination of the bishops of your church solely through Orthodox bishops continuously back to Christ—and specifically through those from whom they received ordination, namely the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Instead, you point out that in Alexandria, Rome, and elsewhere, there were Orthodox bishops at the time when there were heretics in the Church of Constantinople. So we will respond to you in the same way as to the person mentioned above: what does it matter if there were Orthodox bishops from whom your bishops did not receive ordination? Show us that all your bishops’ predecessors in ordination were Orthodox. But this you do not show and cannot show, yet you demand it from us and reproach us for it. You point out the speck in our eye but do not notice the beam in your own.
To understand the matter properly and to gain a complete understanding of apostolic succession in the church, it is necessary to note that this succession has two aspects: one through ordination and the other through faith. Heretical bishops and priests may possess succession through ordination, but only Orthodox Christians possess succession through faith. St. Gregory the Theologian defines and explains this in his encomium to St. Athanasius the Great, saying, “He was raised to the throne of Mark (the evangelist), succeeding him not only in primacy but equally in piety. For although he was distant from him in the former, yet he was close in the latter. This is where true succession lies. For unity in faith makes them share the same throne, while division in faith sets them apart, and one succession is only in name, while the other is in reality” (Works, part 2, p. 182). Your bishops and priests have only the succession of ordination but not of faith. They hold to teachings and traditions not upheld by the entire Orthodox Church before Nikon, and thus cannot trace their succession in ordination back to Christ, not only through Orthodox bishops but even through those who are of like mind with them. Their succession can only be traced from the present back to Nikon, but no further. After all, which fully Orthodox bishops before Nikon held the beliefs they now hold? Who, for example, prayed with three fingers and cursed those who did not? It is clear that your bishops possess only apostolic succession in name, not in substance.
New Ritualist: That is not true—we can list those who were appointed as bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors down to us, as St. Irenaeus of Lyons attests (Book 3, Chapter 4).
Old Ritualist: And why do you not read further, where he says, “who taught nothing of the kind that these (heretics) now babble”?
But can you list a line of bishops, continuously, back to the apostles, who taught what your bishops now teach and held to what they now hold? Beyond Nikon and his associates, you cannot point to any such bishops. Therefore, the testimony you provided from St. Irenaeus does not justify you but rather condemns you. The words of St. Athanasius the Great apply precisely to the succession of your bishops: “Who will not condemn the levity of Acacius and Eudoxius (bishops), who, out of zeal and inclination towards the Arians, sacrifice the honor of their fathers (those of the First Ecumenical Council)? Or what assurance can there be in what they have done if they violate what was done by the fathers? Or why do they call them fathers and themselves their successors if they reject their decisions?” (Works, part 3, p. 121).
New Ritualist: And what will you say about the apostolic succession of your own community?
Old Ritualist: That it has always been with us, without interruption, even during the period without bishops from Nikon to Metropolitan Ambrose. It is known that we had priests continuously during that time. Apostolic succession in faith and ordination belongs not only to bishops but also to priests. In the book On Faith, we read: “For each bishop has deputies whom he himself consecrated. Many received this grace of ordination from the blessed Peter and are his deputies, and each presbyter is a deputy of the apostle from whom he received the blessing of the priesthood” (ch. 20, p. 182). In the Kormchaia we find: “David said, ‘Thy priests shall be clothed with righteousness, and in place of thy fathers shall be thy sons, whom thou shalt make princes over all the earth.’ For in place of Abraham’s children He appointed the apostles, and in place of the apostles, the holy fathers, archbishops, and priests” (ch. 57, p. 595). In the book Son of the Church, it is written: “Great indeed is the rank of the priesthood; it is the apostolic inheritance”. Thus, the Old Believer Church, even during the time without bishops, having held the Orthodox faith and retained priests, always had deputies or successors of the apostles, and therefore always has had and still has apostolic succession, not only in name but in substance, not only through ordination but also through faith. Your church does not possess such succession.
In general, it is necessary to note that concerning the succession of ordination, we must follow the teachings of the Holy Fathers. That is, even if a minister was ordained by a heretic but is himself not a heretic, he should be accepted in his rank (see above). By following this practice, the Old Believer Church and hierarchy are entirely justified. Those who accuse them, as the proverb says, spit against the sun and only end up spitting on themselves.
And indeed, you sought to prove, for example, that the Old Believer Church does not have an unbroken succession from the apostles, yet it turns out that it does, whereas your so-called Orthodox Church lacks such succession, especially in the succession of faith, since it contains many errors. Your church also cannot prove an unbroken succession of ordination because, by its own Luciferian heresy, it denies the ordination of heretical bishops. Without solely Orthodox bishops, it is impossible to trace such succession. In light of this, instead of devising empty accusations against the Old Believer Church, you would do better to address the real errors and mistakes of your church, which are countless.
New Ritualist: We will discuss this another time. But now it is time to end our conversation. Just as a parting thought, I’ll tell you openly that no matter how you defend yourselves or accuse us, we will defeat you. We now have a great force—missionaries, who will inevitably overcome you. If not by words, then by actions; they will bring serious accusations against you, take you to court, throw you in prison, exile you, or even send you to hard labor if you do not accept Orthodoxy. They have already dealt with many of your brethren in this way.
Old Ritualist: Is that so! You boast that your missionaries are capable of doing evil. But even serpents can do evil, and demons even more so. Therefore, your threats are in vain. Neither your promises nor your threats can shake a believing soul. There are promises and threats infinitely stronger and more terrifying than yours. “He that overcometh shall inherit all things,” says the Lord, “and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:7-8).
The interlocutors parted,
and the conversation ended.