1.
Arbitrary
authority
It is customary
amongst Protestant religions -when someone disagrees with certain of
their dogmas- to break away and form another, independent team of their
own. These teams quite often evolve into self-dependent, separate
religions, which baptize, distribute bread and wine, ordain “elders” and
pursue many other activities.
There are also
teams, even individual persons, who congregate and study the Bible
without the presence of “elders”, or any other kind of infrastructure.
The latter usually believe it is wrong for someone to belong to a
religion and they maintain that a Christian should remain free of any
commitments in any religious area.
But, are these
stances and customs proper? Could there be something that all these
people have overlooked and should re-examine?
A first question
that arises in the first instance is the issue of authority. Perhaps
certain people should ask themselves: “With
what authority am I creating a new religion? With what right do I
baptize, or distribute bread and wine, or ordain Elders? Is it really
alright for one to proceed with such actions? Who put me in charge, who
made me an Elder, so that I too can superintend over a new
congregation?”
Similarly, those
who are “independent” of religions should ask themselves: “Is
it possible for me to be following - as I claim- the paradigm of the
apostles and the first Christians, when I don’t belong to any Church the
way they did? Where are the Elders of my congregation? When was someone
of us ordained, by someone who had this authority? With what authority
do I baptize? Is my participation in the supper of the Lord a valid one,
when it is an arbitrary participation? How can I be a part of the
worldwide and all-time body of the Church, when I have no communion with
any of the other Churches of the Lord? Or is my team, or my person,
perhaps the only one that is Christian? So, which are the Churches of
the Lord, according to the paradigm of the apostles?
As strange as it
may sound to a Christian, there are many people who actually do act this arbitrarily in such important matters as faith and salvation.
The reason for this behavior is that is has become a force of habit,
from their Protestant roots.
When Protestantism
introduced Reform in the West, it did not comprise a continuation of an
apostolically rendered arrangement, it was merely an autonomous and
independent protest; there was no historical continuance in their
protestation, and no-one with such authority ever ordained
Luther or Calvin as Elders in their new religion. Even if they had been
ordained by a former Papist (since there was no-one in this new religion
to perform an ordination), this ordination would still not be valid,
because the Papists had already been pronounced a heretic
congregation at that time. No-one from another religion would
undertake to ordain Elders in a newly-formed, rivalrous faith. This
would have been incongruous, because both the ordainer of the one
religion and the ordained of the other religion are equally in heresy,
and consequently, the ordination is deemed invalid.
So, given that
Protestantism suddenly penetrated history, it naturally found itself without Elders
and without any legally bestowed authority to
perform its religious obligations. It was therefore compelled to act arbitrarily, from the very first moment
it appeared.
Conclusion:
All
Protestant “elders” officiate arbitrarily; they have no historical
continuance and no authority to officiate.
It is no wonder,
that all affiliated Protestant groups act in a similar way; they just
haven’t realized that what they do is impermissible.
2.
The paradigm of
the apostles
One excuse that is
offered by Protestants is that since all Christians belong to a “Regal
Priesthood”, they all have the authority to baptize and to
elect Elders, as well as to distribute bread and wine. Thus, they do not
need any special ordination for these things. And although there is a
multitude of Church regulations (Canons) that prove the absurdity
of these assertions, we feel obliged to convince them of the facts, by
referring them to the paradigm of the apostles themselves, since they
refuse to accept the regulations of the Church.
We shall therefore
prove that in the era of the apostles, the
hieratic status of Christians did not comprise a prerequisite that
allowed them to act arbitrarily.
We shall see how ordination as well as a given mission was compulsory,
in order for someone to be able to baptize, distribute bread and wine,
or superintend the Christian congregations of the first centuries.
This continues to
apply in the Church of the Lord to this day, as it always did, and as is
witnessed by all the proto-Christian writings that have been preserved
until now. In the narrations of the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear
that God did not act independently of His Church, as Protestants
assert.
Let’s look at a few
examples:
When the 7 deacons
were elected in the Church, this didn’t take place arbitrarily; the
laying on of the Apostle’s hands was necessary: “whom they placed
before the apostles, and while praying, they (apostles) placed their
hands upon them” (Acts 6/VI 3-6)p,
These 7 deacons
weren’t “appointed” by any arbitrary religious leadership; it was after the laying on of the hands of the apostles themselves. As for the
Apostles, they too had received authority for all this, from Jesus
Christ Himself, and they also never acted arbitrarily: “Verily
I say unto you, whatever is bound by you on earth is bound in heaven and
whatever is unbound by you on earth is unbound in heaven. And again,
verily I say unto you, that if two amongst you should agree on anything
that they might request,
it will be done unto them, by my Father in heaven”
(Matthew 18/XVIII
18,19)
“..for Jesus said to them again: Peace be with you. Just
as my Father sent me forth, thus I send you forth. Having said this, He
blew His breath upon them and said to them: Receive Holy Spirit. If you
discharge (people’s) sins, they will be forgiven; if you do not
discharge them, they will be remain firm” (John 20/XX 21-23)
It is therefore
clearly evident that in the Church there is a
line of authority: the Father sent forth the Son, the Son sent forth the
apostles, and they, with the tremendous authority that was bestowed upon
them, commenced to distribute authority to others.
Let’s examine a few
more tracts of the Holy Bible as examples:
When Philip the
evangelist preached in Samaria - despite all the miracles that he
performed – he did not have the authority to transmit the Holy Spirit
into the newly baptized, because only the apostles had this authority at
the time. “When the Apostles in Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had embraced the Word of God, they sent there Peter
and John, who, on their way down (to Samaria) prayed for them, so that
they might receive Holy Spirit…. On seeing that the Spirit is given
through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, Simon brought them money,
saying: “Give me this authority also, so that whomever I lay my hands on
will receive Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8/VIII 4-19)
When Saul (the one
who was later renamed Paul) converted to the Christian faith and was
sent forth by Jesus Christ Himself, the mission and the instructions
given by the very Lord were not enough! The Lord sent him Ananias ( who
was a Christian and had the power of healing ), to baptize Saul and to
transmit the Holy Spirit into him. This narration is in Acts 9/IX 1 - 19.
But even Ananias, when placing his hands on Saul, declares that he
had received the authority to do so: “ and on laying his hands
upon him, he (Ananias) said: Saul my brother, the Lord sent me: Jesus,
the One who you saw on the road that you were coming from, so that you
can regain your sight and be filled with Holy Spirit.”
It is evident here,
how significant the source of every authority for every action was,
to the first Christians. Good intentions were not enough, not even the
decision of the Lord; The act had to be endorsed by a Christian
appointed by the Lord, so that everything be done in Ecclesiastic
order.
But even so,
the mission given directly by the Lord did not suffice for the
apostle Paul. Following a revelation, he sought out the apostles that
preceded him, so that he might obtain from them the authority to perform
his mission of preaching to nations.
This narration is in Galatians 2/II 1 - 10:
´´Then……. I went up to Jerusalem…...
according to a revelation. And I reported to them (the apostles) the
gospel that I preach to the nations - and personally to them that are
cognizant - for them to determine whether I am -or have been- heading
towards a void…….and upon ascertaining the grace that was bestowed upon
me, James and Peter and John – who are believed to be pillars – offered
the communion of (laid) their right hand on myself and Barnabas…..”...´´
The exact same
thing happened, when the Lord sent Peter to Cornelius; the Lord didn’t
send the Holy Spirit to Cornelius directly; He first sent Peter,
in order to baptize Cornelius as well. (Acts
10/X 44-48)
Even in Antioch,
when the Holy Spirit sent Paul and Barnabas on a mission, this took
place only after those who had the authority laid their hands upon
them. (Acts 13/XIII 1 - 3).
The apostle Paul in
turn laid his hands upon Timothy, in order to convey authority to him,
so that he may undertake the office of Bishop in Ephesus:
´´I wish to remind you to
rekindle the charisma of God that is within you by the laying on of my
hands” (Timothy Â
1/I 6).
In the same way,
both Timothy as well as Titus in Crete had been given the authority
to ordain Elders.
(Timothy Á 5/V 17 - 20. Titus 1/I
5).
Saint Ignatius,
a 2nd century bishop,
acted in the same spirit:´´Without
that (approval) of a Bishop,
not even baptism is permitted...´´
(Smyrnaeans, 8).
´´It
(the Eucharist) is one, being under a Bishop´´.
(Magnesians,
6-7).
We see therefore,
that the offices of the Church are not just for everyone who believes in
Christ; the officiator has to first
receive the authority from those who have it, and who can transmit it to
them.
It would therefore
be a wise move, for those who arbitrarily undertake Church functions, to
reconsider their ways and seek to acquire the authority from those who
have such authority in the Orthodox Church: from those who are the
successors of the apostles according to the Lord’s intention.