On the Sacrament of Priesthood #
New Ritualist: No matter what you say or how much you try to justify yourselves, your arguments do not convince me because you are attempting to prove that priesthood is not eternal. But can the priesthood be abolished, or the office of bishop come to an end? Can one agree with you that, after Nikon, the priesthood was abolished and only reappeared after one hundred eighty years? This is completely unacceptable. All holy and patristic writings testify that Christ’s priesthood is eternal. In the book attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, it says: “As He (Christ) Himself does not die, so also His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek does not cease, as it is written: ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’ Aaron’s high priesthood ceased as it was temporary, but Christ’s eternal priesthood rose up, having risen from the dead, He sanctified His apostles for this through ordination, which is by the laying on of hands” (p. 77). Blessed Theodoret, commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul: “For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” says: “Since God Himself appointed the priests under the Law, and after their cessation, appointed another in their place, it was necessary for the Apostle to say that the former were appointed by God without an oath, but in the appointment of This One, an oath was added. Therefore, do not think that this priesthood, like the former, will cease and be replaced by another. Such a supposition is rejected by the oath that was made” (his Works, part 7, p. 605).
Thus, Christ’s priesthood is eternal, not temporary, and therefore bishops cannot all fall into heresy; otherwise, the priesthood would cease, which is contrary to the teachings of the holy fathers. But throughout our conversation, you keep insisting that the priesthood can cease or be abolished.
Old Ritualist: Why do you speak falsely and slander me? At no point in our discussion have I said that the priesthood can cease or be abolished. I have only said and proven that bishops can fall into heresy, not that the priesthood can be abolished.
New Ritualist: But it is the same thing. If bishops fall into error, then the priesthood is destroyed.
Old Ritualist: Is it truly the same thing, whether it is a bishop or the priesthood itself? Is the priesthood merely the people who bear it, or is it, rather, a sacrament of the Church?
New Ritualist: Yes, the priesthood is the bishop, priest, and deacon.
Old Ritualist: But those are only degrees or ranks of the priesthood, not the priesthood itself. The priesthood itself is a sacrament of the Church. If we were to define the priesthood solely as the mentioned ranks of the hierarchy, then it would mean that there are not seven sacraments but six, or that those persons themselves are sacraments. If, however, the priesthood is an unrepeatable sacrament, which a person receives only once in their lifetime, then it can never be abolished, even if those who bear it err in some way. According to your teaching, however, that the priesthood is people, it would indeed have to be abolished if they fall. This is the impious notion you hold and wish to impose upon us.
New Ritualist: No, we also acknowledge that the priesthood is not people, but a sacrament of the Church. But this only further condemns your community. In it, there were not seven sacraments, but only six. The most essential sacrament—the priesthood—was absent, without which the other sacraments cannot exist and which only a bishop has the right to perform. For one hundred eighty years, your community had no bishop to administer this sacrament, and therefore had no priesthood during that time. It is written that if any church loses even one sacrament, it ceases to be an Orthodox Church.
Old Ritualist: And who receives and possesses the sacrament of priesthood?
New Ritualist: The bishop, priest, and deacon.
Old Ritualist: Exactly. Among the Old Ritualists, priests and deacons were always present, even when there were no bishops, which means that the sacrament of priesthood was always present.
New Ritualist: How so?
Old Ritualist: In this way: you yourself say that priests possess the sacrament of priesthood, and we have always had priests; therefore, we have always had the sacrament of priesthood.
New Ritualist: So, according to you, priests—that is, people—are the priesthood itself. But according to us, the sacrament of priesthood is the laying on of hands by the bishop with prayer upon the head of the one receiving the sacrament.
Old Ritualist: You misunderstand me. I did not say that the priest is the sacrament of priesthood itself, but only that he bears it within himself: the priest is the bearer of this sacrament, just as a baptized person is the bearer of the sacrament of baptism, though, of course, he himself is not baptism, but only possesses it within him.
To make this clearer for you, it is necessary to explain that the sacraments of the Church are divided into two types: repeatable and non-repeatable. For example, repentance and communion are repeatable sacraments: the more frequently a person receives them, the better for them. However, non-repeatable sacraments are received only once in a person’s life—no more. Such are baptism and priesthood. If anyone repeats them, that is, receives them more than once, they not only gain no benefit but incur great and severe condemnation. Why are these sacraments not repeated? Because they produce in the soul of the one who receives them an indelible and inalienable mark: it cannot be removed by sins or heresies. Thus, if someone is baptized, then even if they commit the gravest sins or fall into the most grievous heresies, the baptism remains upon them. Therefore, when they repent and turn back from the path of error, they do not need to be baptized again; repentance alone, established for such a case, is sufficient. The same is true for the priesthood: regardless of the sins or heresies into which the one who received it may fall, this sacrament is not removed from them. I will provide proofs for this a little later. The laying on of hands and prayer are not the priesthood itself, but only the means by which it is conferred and completed, as it is written in the Small Catechism:
Question: What is the matter or form of the mystery of priesthood?
Answer: The matter (substance) is the laying on of the hands of the bishop on the head of the one receiving holy orders. The completion is achieved by the prayer recited by the bishop while laying on hands, during which he says, The divine grace, and so forth.\footnote{The Small Catechism of the Orthodox Church. Independently published (Amazon Publishing), 2024, p.60*
Thus, the laying on of hands and the prayer are only the visible act and completion of the sacrament of priesthood, but not the sacrament itself. The sacrament of priesthood itself is what a person receives through this visible act and completion.
According to your view, this visible act and completion are the sacrament itself, and therefore, as soon as it is finished, the sacrament itself ceases to exist: it would be as though it disappeared, evaporated, and was abolished. But this is an obvious absurdity, similar to someone asserting that the construction of a building is the building itself; and as soon as the construction is finished, the building ceases to exist. In reality, it would be more accurate to say the opposite: while the building is being constructed, it is not yet fully a building, but once the construction is finished, the building exists. The same should be said of the sacrament of priesthood. When it is only being performed through ordination and prayers but is not yet completed, then the sacrament itself is not fully present. Once completed, however, the sacrament of priesthood exists upon the one who has received it and remains with them permanently, as it is written: The ordained are separated from the secular faithful, and this mark remains upon the soul forever, not removed either on earth or in heaven; therefore, it should never and must not be repeated, but given only once (Great Catechism, ch. 72, p. 357b). Remaining forever upon the one who has received it, the sacrament of priesthood, as it were, lives within them constantly. For this reason, as the Apostle Paul writes to his disciple Timothy, Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands (2 Timothy 1:6, reading 290); Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14, reading 285). Thus, according to apostolic teaching, the priesthood, as a gift of God, does not vanish upon its completion but abides, living continuously in the one who received it.
If we accept your opinion that the performance of the sacrament of priesthood is the sacrament itself, this not only contradicts apostolic and patristic teaching but also leads to many other absurdities and errors. If this sacrament is abolished once its performance ceases and does not remain forever upon the one who received it, then it would mean that your priests do not have the priesthood. They only had it upon them at the moment the sacrament was performed for them, but now they no longer possess it. What kind of priests are they, then, if they lack the priesthood? If, however, you recognize them as priests who bear the sacrament of priesthood, then you must also acknowledge that the Old Ritualist priests had it as well, and, therefore, that the sacrament of priesthood was always present in the Old Ritualist Church.
Additionally, I find it necessary to add that both in the ancient holy Church and in your own, the sacrament of priesthood has not always been and is not always continuously performed; there have undeniably been, and continue to be, significant periods of time during which it is not performed: thus, during such times, it is absent from your church as well. Not only the priesthood but other sacraments are not always performed constantly—they are not performed every minute, and there are undoubtedly periods of time during which not a single sacrament is performed, which would mean that at such times, your church loses all seven sacraments. According to your teaching, it would therefore cease to be the Church.
New Ritualist: Though the sacrament of priesthood is not performed constantly among us, there is always the possibility of performing it. We always have a bishop who is ready at any time to perform and bestow it upon those who require it. But for a span of one hundred eighty years, you did not perform the sacrament of priesthood because you had no bishop to perform it—there was no one to do it.
Old Ritualist: But this actually condemns you all the more while justifying us. If we are guilty of not performing this sacrament because we lacked the ability to do so, how much more are you guilty, who, though having the constant ability to perform it, choose not to. By this, you voluntarily deprive yourselves of the most important sacrament—the priesthood—leaving yourselves without it for certain periods of time, and therefore, according to your own view, also without the other sacraments. One who refrains from performing it out of necessity may have some justification, but one who willingly goes without it, as you do, has no justification whatsoever.
Moreover, there are certain times when a bishop does not have the right to perform the sacrament of priesthood. For example, during Great Lent, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. The holy fathers have explicitly forbidden serving the liturgy during this time, and therefore also performing the sacrament of priesthood, since it cannot be performed under any circumstance without the liturgy. Would you say that the holy fathers prohibited the existence of the sacrament of priesthood throughout Great Lent? And would you claim that the ancient holy Church did not possess it during that time, and neither does your New Ritualist Church? According to your teaching, that the sacrament of priesthood does not exist whenever it is not being performed, one would have to answer “yes” to all of this. But this is an obvious absurdity and error.
If the priesthood does not vanish when the act of its performance ceases but remains forever upon the one who has received it—a priest or a bishop—then it is clear that the Old Ritualist Church has always had this sacrament without interruption, since priests were always present in it. Furthermore, it must be noted that a priest, like a bishop, possesses not a part of the sacrament of priesthood but the entirety, as it is written in the Kormchaia: The priest differs from the bishop only in that he does not ordain, but he fully possesses the priesthood (ch. 36, p. 283b). Therefore, the Old Ritualist Church has always possessed the sacrament of priesthood, and thus all seven of the Church’s sacraments: it has not “lost” a single one of them.