Православное

Ordination/ The Hierotonia.

The most important and fearful moment in the life of each pastor, the moment that remains memorable for life, is ordination into the holy and great office of the priesthood by the archbishop’s hand. It was already mentioned concerning preparation for pastoral service, but it is especially necessary for a future priest to think how to protect himself in modern times from the secular life, in order to approach this high vocation, the very sacrament of the priesthood, with the appropriate attitude.

Before that time, the question arises before a candidate arises about his future parish, about the altar to which the Church will assign him as Her servant. Moreover, although this question probably has to do with the canons, we must say several words, since these formal and administrative details concern the future candidate for holy orders. Christian history recognizes three ways. The Protestant way (which in the essence does not have priesthood and ordination) turned to one extreme. The dissidents from Rome are bound only by election by community. This is sufficient in the eyes of those who purchased their freedom through negation of the Roman primacy and with distorted study of the Church, and by the negation of any hierarchy. The price of this is the self-righteous temptation of themselves and others, and anarchy, in which the blessed aspect is completely denied. This is the extreme democratization of the understanding of the Church.

Roman Catholicism went to the opposite extreme, through the complete suppression of the personal initiative and expulsion (in principle, at least), of the secular element, the people themselves. The Church, in the Roman mindset, is concentrated in the hierarchy. That churchly priesthood and chosen people, about which the books of the Old and New Testament spoke and yet which the original Christianity did not forget, got completely tarnished in the mindset of the dignitary prelates of Rome. The people do not participate in the election of the clergy for them. The ancient elections of an archpriest with the participation of people became the conclaves of the special class of cardinals, a thing unknown to the early Church. The same happened in the life of the parishes and dioceses. The people are deprived of the participation in the election of pastors. Not everything there is bad. The Catholics are released from many temptations from which Orthodox Christians suffer, possessing a conciliar mentality. However, there is certain numbness in their church life. One should note that the Roman service of ordination contains one detail (forgotten by us): the applying on of hands upon the one being ordained not by a single bishop, but also by the other presbyters, the entire pleroma (fullness) of the church.

Orthodoxy always tried to follow the median way and, avoiding the extreme of the view of the one part of Western Christianity, did not turn toward the immoderation of the other. Orthodoxy since the oldest times cherished the principle of the election of the priest and bishop by the people.

No matter how the historians resolve this problem, can the New Testament and canonical worshipers convincingly prove the primacy of this specific elective system? Or can we prove that the apostles always selected their candidates themselves, after conferring with “the people”? Is it is possible to unconditionally ignore Christ's words: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16), which indicate the election not from below, but from above? Is this system of election generally according to the spirit of the Gospel, that is, should one draw a general conclusion from some facts from apostolic history, if the benefit of elections with the assistance of the so called “people — the keeper of piety” — is indisputable and always proves correct? All these questions are outside the sphere of our science. However, they cannot but influence the position of a priest in his parish and in his relations with his flock. Of course, this third way smoothes out the extremes of the first two paths, the Presbyterian anarchy and Latin Papacy. Nevertheless, in this practice not all is indisputable and flawless. The participation of the people themselves in the election of their pastor is not a bad beginning; however, it is not a guarantee of correctness. Those people who have been brought up within the strict framework of the church life and who are faithful to the canons and traditions will be able to use this right more or less correctly. However, in the absence of these qualities, with the liberal tendencies of the flock towards independence, and mainly, when a priest has weak nature, he can easily become one who is guided by the “people - the keeper of piety,” who elected him.

Be that as it may, the principle of election by the people or, to be more precise, the participation of the people in the matter of pointing out which candidate who seems more suitable to them to the authorities, has to some extent spread in the East. The ancient Russian practice recognized this principle, “when the prince wants something, the people will want that as well.” Stoglav made this a rule for the simple churches, whereas in the “rouge” churches there were selected princely and tsarist “stewards.” The “contract record” was made, which showed desire of one and the other side not to break the agreement conditions; this attitude introduces a certain element alien to the spirit of priesthood into pastoral relations. A bishop had only to ordain the future priest. With a deficiency of the prepared candidates, the bishop could hardly propose a “veto” right. With the synodal arrangement of the Russian church the principle of electivity of the clergy went out of use and they started to speak about the desire of its restoration only in the works of the pre-council institutes.

In the latter times (18^th to 19^th centuries), the principle of election was followed to a certain degree in the regions of Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Orthodox population (Voyevodina, Bukovina, Chernovitsa Metropolis, Dalmatian diocese).

Undoubtedly, it is possible to see some positive sides of this elective principle. Each person receives the right to select his spiritual leader and to give specifically to him ones conscience and soul. Nevertheless, in the priesthood and in pastoral activity the element of seniority predominates. The confessor and his disciples form that unit, which in the old-Russian dialect was called “the confessionary family.” However, in the words “family” and “fatherland’ the element of submissiveness and obedience can be felt. However, the elective principle introduces something juridical, democratic, which has nothing to do with humility.

Leaving aside these questions, one should switch over to the ordination itself, to its meaning and content. No matter whether a priest is selected or is appointed by his future diocesan bishop, there comes the hour of his mysterious and dreadful ordination. If we speak about its symbolism, then it is possible to draw these parallels: the selection by the flock is certain matchmaking, and ordination — the wedding of a priest with his flock. The chain of actions, common to both the one and the other sacrament, fortifies this symbolism: walking around the Analoy or the Holy Table, singing the same chants (but in the reverse order) “Rejoice, Isaiah,” “O holy martyrs...” Hence, it is possible to reach several conclusions: the marriage of a priest with his flock is an indissoluble union, as marriage is indissoluble as well. Therefore, the displacement of a priest from one place to another must not in principal take place, as the displacement of bishops from one department to another. In principle, a priest cannot be replaced.

But there is another essential feature in this sacrament: the priesthood is indelible, as the Roman Catholics teach. The Greek theologians share the same opinion. Metropolitan Philaret looked at it differently. Speaking decisively, the Grace brought down by a bishop in the mysterious divine service during the Liturgy cannot be taken by any authority on the earth. To consider that the act of consistory can deprive man of the Grace of the Holy Spirit is a theological inconsistency. Baptism and the priesthood are inherent and indelible. Even the sin of apostasy does not wash off the blessedness of baptism; those returning from apostasy are not baptized again. In exactly the same way the most terrible sin committed by a priest, that brought him to the deprivation of his rank, cannot by itself, as a consistory act, deprive a priest of Grace. In the case of judicial error a defrocked priest who proves to be innocent would be ordained again, which, of course, the strictest rigorist cannot admit. We must recognize as even more terrible and blasphemous the so-called “sacramental defrocking,” practiced in the Russian and Serbian church. The case of the defrocking of Bishop Varlaam of Smolensk happened in the reign of Emperor Alexander I. The convicted came from the altar in complete vestments, after which at the western doors they took the sacred vestments off him one after another with the exclamation of “anaxios” and finally banished him from the temple with a baton. All this resembles a black mass in structure and its inside-out actions. The Greeks recognize only the lifelong prohibition fromserving, but in no way the deprivation of the rank. The Catholics developed, as we know, an entire study about the so-called nature of a sacrament, i.e.the indelibleness of the seal of the two sacraments, — baptism and priesthood.

In the Serbian church, there also existed the office of the deprivation of the rank. In 1899, the Serbian Hierarchical Council deprived of rank archpriest Milan Dzhurich, who attempted to kill King Milan Obrenovich and was sentenced to 20 years of the penal servitude. The defrocking took place in the church with the removal of vestments and exclamations of “Unworthy!” (See Prof. Voznesensky “From the Church Life of the Orthodox Slavs,” in “The theological Herald” of 1900, p. 530). In the Serbian Metropolitan Mikhail’s book, “The Orthodox Serbian Church in the Principality of Serbia” (on p. 213-215) this rank of eruption from the priesthood is found.

With these preliminary considerations, it is possible to move on to the basic theme — to the ordination itself. Besides all the above about multifaceted preparation, the candidate for the priesthood must not ever forget about this indelibility of the priestly office gift. Ordination is that mysterious act which separates a simple layman from the blessed representative in the altar, from the server of sacrament, from the theurgist, who is an intermediary between God and the world and leading his flock by the Grace of the Holy Spirit to spiritual improvement, to becoming the image of God. After ordination, he is no more a simple person, but a clergyman. He is not only the elect of his flock, but also the bearer of Grace. However, this ordination by the hand of a bishop that leads him into the clergy does not tear him away from the flock and does not lock him into some caste of priests, but organically connects him with the flock; it relates him to those who will be the one with him from this moment on.

After testing himself again and feeling sure that he does not want “to look back” anymore, a candidate can accept the Grace of the priesthood after the order of Melchisadec. The experts in pastoral theology usually advise not to put this off for long after graduation. This is true because any excessive delay does not strengthen, but cools, brings some new doubts, and disturbs the internal unity of the soul. Furthermore, there is another observation of our pastoralists (Metr. Anthony), that we must give to God all our strength, to burn up before God the whole candle, but not to return to Him a candle end, useless to anyone, left after spending the candle on trifles in everyday fuss. But the same Met. Anthony advises (2, 291) not to rush with ordination of a person who just got married. In fact, the atmosphere of being newly married, and affection contributes little to the internal concentration necessary for the laying on of hands and in particular — for the first steps in priesthood. One must calm down before this important sacrament.

Before the ordination, it is rather good to get away from all mundane interests and noise for some time. Solitude in a monastery, however small, will help the candidate to pray more and more easily and to delve into his internal world. Fasting, prayerful struggles, abstention from everything mundane will more easily help the candidate to approach the dreadful hour.

The eve of ordination comes. The candidate fulfills all the necessary formalities, does not waste his attention on the other preparations. In the consistory, he signs his priestly oath, which he must take with all the seriousness and fear. With the necessary papers from the bishop and the consistory he goes to his confessor for the so called “candidate confession.” This is the new and last control of his conscience before ordination. This is the confession for an entire life. Each confession must be treated as the last prior to death, since we must be to prepared to appear before God’s judgment at any hour, but the candidate confession is the examination of all that was done in his life, whicht could have been forgotten or left unsaid because of human weakness. With a reconciled conscience, a clean heart and the the consciousness of his complete unworthiness and imperfection, not with false humbleness, but with a contrite heart the candidate brings to God in the presence of his witness, the confessor, his repentance, and appeals for the gift of chaste priesthood.

With the signature of the confessor (at the consistory report or on the application) about not finding any canonical obstacles for ordination, a candidate awaits for ordination the next da. St. Gregory the Theologian, in his defensive word, says: “I feel shame for the ones, who with unwashed hands, unclean souls undertake the holy matter and before being made worthy to approach the priesthood, rush into the sanctuary, crowd and jostle around the Holy Gifts, as if treating this rank not as the paradigm of virtues, but as a means of sustenance; not like as service which awaits with accountability, but as an authory, who does not give account. […].... it is necessary first to become pure, then to make pure; to become wise, then to teach; to become light, and then to enlighten, to approach God, and then lead others to Him; to be blessed, then to bless.”

Frequently before the ordination a recognized cowardice, a desire to run without looking back, in order not to shoulder this difficult burden, will attack the weak people or those too rational, excessively demanding of themselves (with an overly scrupulous conscience). To this tempting voice one must give a decisive answer. It is not necessary to hesitate and tear one’s soul in these minutes, remembering that “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (Jam. 1:8). For some, these momentss are so painful that only the firm hand of the confessor, the voice of a real friend that cheers up, can help the weakening conscience of a candidate. Here it is important to remind of “the Divine grace, which ever healeth what is infirm and supplieth what is wanting.”

These final hours can be boldly compared with some human Gethsemane and the temptation of feeling abandoned by God. One of the outstanding pastors spoke about his “dying” before the ordination. In these hours occurs some personal impoverishment, alike to, preserving all the perspectives and proportions of, the kenosis of the Son of God. A priest tries to repeat Christ's priesthood, to become like to Him, to become holy in everything. In ordination occurs the new birth of a new person; a layman becomes “the new creature” in Christ.

Here, in this moment unique in life, occurs the capture of man into the obedience to Christ. Here a candidate pronounces the vows, dreadful for himself, of a special love for the High Priest and the Church, connects with Them forever and, without losing himself in his personality, at the same time dissolves in the mystical unity with the body of Christ, with Its leader, fills with the Spirit, rises to Heaven.

Each moment of this divine service is significant and dreadful: both ordination into the first degrees of the priesthood, — reader, subdeacon and deacon, and the first passage through the Royal Gates as through the certain enormous boundary, and going around the Holy Table. At the chanting of the wedding chants, the first touch to the Holy Table, kneeling and the sensation of the heavy brocade omophorion on the head and of the blessing hand of a bishop, and, probably, the most dreadful — the words of a bishop, in an undertone spoken into the ear of a candidate: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens and beg God for forgiveness of your sins and for the gift of a chaste priesthood.” Like lightning from the skies, these words pierce man as with a fiery sword, they cut off everything sinful and as a thunder clap, or maybe, as “the barely perceptible cold” the ear catches the words of the prayer: “The Divine Grace, which always heals that which is infirm, and supplies that which is lacking, ordains, N., the most-pious Subdeacon to be Deacon. Therefore, let us pray for him, that the grace of the All-holy Spirit may come upon him.” This first passage through the Royal Gates and coming close to the Holy Table is the most amazing. This is like passing through the fire, which burns, clarifies and regenerates. This is the entrance into the other world, into the Heavenly Realm.

Then begins the vesting into the white clothing. Not only are the Royal Gates opened, but also the deacons’ doors as a sign of the fact that the contact with those praying, with the people, is closer, and their participation is more direct than in the other sacraments. This is especially felt in the repeated “axsios” (“worthy”) to each part of sacred vesting, glorified also in the altar with the officials and the choir, i.e., those, who express the feelings of people by their chanting.

Finally comes the last moment: the presentation of the diskos with the particle of holy Lamb to a new priest and with the words: “Receive this pledge and preserve it whole and intact unto thy last breath, for thou shalt be held to account for it at the second and dread coming of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Now he is no more a simple layman, but a theurgist and the sacraments’ fulfiller. This is no longer someone with a name and patronymic, but father N. He must, on St. Gregory the Theologian’s word, “stand with the angels, glorify with the archangels, bring sacrifice to the Holy Altar, hold Divine services with Christ, re-construct creation, restore the image of God, create for the Heavenly world and, I will say more, to be God and to create with Gods” (The Defensive Word).

From this moment on, begins not a simple, but a Holy life; not activity, but service; not talks, but a sermon; not the infirmity of one being long weak, but the daring of a friend of Christ, “forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before” (Philip 3:13), the Reign of Grace, eternity and crucifixion for Christ.