The Sacrament of Holy Orders

HomeAmharicFranćaisDeutschOriental Church MusicPhoto Gallery Discussion / ForumLinksCalendar

THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY ORDERS I. Definition. “Holy Orders” is the sacrament through which the clergy are ordained to celebrate the various church services. Some Protestants say that Christ did not distinguish anyone in His church, and that all the members are the same, and that there is no need for separating special persons as ministers. This is utterly wrong, because of the following reasons: (1) Christ set apart special persons as Apostles, and spent a whole night before choosing them. “And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all nigh in prayer to God. And when it was day He called unto Him His disciples: and of them He chose twelve whom also He named Apostles.” (Luke 6:12, 13)

(2) He gave them special privileges which were not given to others e. g . He said to them “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt, 18:18)

(3) When sending them before His ascension He promised them to be with them “ even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20) This promise is of course taken to be valid for their successors also.

(4) When Judas dropped out of the number of the Apostles, they me together, spent some time in discussion and prayer, and chose another to fill this vacancy. (Acts 1:15-26). Had it not been necessary that there should be certain persons set apart for God’s service, they would not have taken the trouble of appointing another one instead of Judas.

(5) Were all Christians of the same degree, they could perform the same services in the church. But a careful study of the Bible specially the “Acts”, shows that the clergy had their own duties which the laity could not dare to perform, and that every category of the clergy had its own duties which could not be performed by another category. For instance when Philip preached in Samaria, he, being a deacon, had not the right to lay on his hands for granting the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this reason the Church of Jerusalem “sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Then laid they the hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8-17)

(6) The Bible appointed certain conditions which should be observed when choosing the bishops, and other conditions when choosing the deacons. (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1)

(7) And the Bible also appointed certain procedures for the ordination of the clergy; e.g. the laying on of hands. (1 Tim. 4. 14)

(8) All historians agree that there have been certain ministers in the church since the first century. All the churches that were instituted at the first century keep lists of their bishops since their beginning.

II. Institution of the Sacrament. (1) This sacrament was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

It was he who appointed the twelve Apostles and the seventy disciples. It was He who sent the Apostles in to the world before His ascension. “ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. 28: 19,20)

St Paul says that it was Christ Himself who appointed some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers (Eph. 4: 11)

And when giving advice to the ministers of the Church of Ephesus he said to them, “Take heed therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20: 38)

(2) And according to the power given to them by the Lord those Apostles appointed bishops, priests and deacons in the churches which they established as will be seen afterwards.

III. The Visible Sign. There are two visible sings: (1) The laying on of hands. The Bible stated that this was performed in the case of bishops (1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 6), and priests (1 Tim. 5: 22) and deacons (Acts 6: 6)

IV. The invisible Grace. The ordained minister is given a divine gift appropriate to the service to which he is called. “Neglect not the gift that in thee; which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. 4: 14) “Therefore 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 Tim. 1: 6) This gift is given by the Holy Ghost who alone can help the minister to perform his duties.

V. Degrees of the Holy Orders. The Bible mentions three degrees; the bishop, the priest and the deacon, (1) The Bishop. This is the highest degree. In 1 Tim. 3: Tit 1 and other places the Bible gives detailed instructions for the choice of bishops. The bishop is given the following rights:- 1. Ordination of the clergy. It was the Apostles who consecrated bishops (2 Tim. 1:6), and ordained priests (Acts 14: 23) and deacons (Acts 6: 3,6) And the bishops, whom the Apostles consecrated, were given that right of ordination. St. Paul, writing to Titus, said: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are waiting, and ordain elders (priests) in every city, as I had appointed thee.” (Tit. 1:5) And, when writing to Timothy, he said; “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” (1 Tim. 5: 22)

2. Trial of the clergy and rebuking them. “Against an elder (priest) receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” (1 Tim. 5: 19,20)

4. Consecration of the altar and the Holy vessels in the case of building a new church, or getting new vessels.

5. They also have the right to celebrate all the church sacraments and rites if they like.

(2) The Priest: Priests are mentioned in many places of the Bible. “They ordained them elders (priests) in every church.” (Acts 14: f23) “Let the elders (priests) that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” (1 Tim. 5: 17) “For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are waiting, and ordain elders priests in every city, as I had appointed thee. (Tit. 1: 5) “ Is any sick man among you: let him call for the elders (priests) of the church, and let them pray over him. Anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14) The priest has the right to celebrate the six sacraments mentioned above, and all church rights . He has also the right to teach and preach.

(3) The Deacon: Deacons are mentioned in the Bible in Acts 6: 3-6 Phil. 1: 1, 1 Tim. 3 A deacon has not the right to celebrate any of the church sacraments, but only to help the priest and the bishop in celebrating them, keep good order in the church, read the various portions of the Bible in the church, teach, preach and perform any service which the bishop or the priest may ask him to do. It was said in the “Orders of the Apostles” that “the deacon is the bishop’s eyes and ears”. In the former times there was a degree of “deaconess.” Her function was to serve the women in the Church, keep good order in the place allowed for them in the church and anoint the bodies of women at the sacrament of confirmation after being anointed by the priest only on their forheads. (Didaskalia 34)

“No woman is allowed to come to the bishop to ask for anything unless she is accompanied by a deaconess.” (Didaskalia 6) “If there is any need for the bishop to send anyone to the women’s houses, he should send a deaconess, because it is not lit to send a deacon.” (Didaskalia 34) It seems that this degree existed in the church at the Apostolic time, St. Paul, writing to the Romans, said “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant for “deaconess” as in other copies and other versions) of the church which is at Canchrea”. (Romans 16: 1) And when writing to Timothy he said, “Let not a widow be taken into the number (into the list) under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” (1 Tim. 5: 9) some think that the Apostle mans here the list of those who were deaconesses in the church.

VI. Ordination of the Clergy (1) A bishop is consecrated by the laying on of the hands of at least three bishops, because one bishop alone cannot consecrate a bishop.

(2) A priest or a deacon is ordained by the laying on of hands of only one bishop.

(3) Ordination can never be repeated for the same degree if the bishop, priest or deacon was previously ordained in a legal way. In the Apostolic Canons (68) it is stated that “if any bishop, priest or deacon is re ordained for the same degree, he will become worthy of excommunication together with him who ordained him.”

(4) No money should be paid at all for the ordination of any one of the three degrees. When Simon offered money for the sake of obtaining one of God’s gifts. St. Peter rebuked him saying “thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.” (Acts 8: 18-20) The church teachers that every ordination performed against any payments is illegal, and that the bishop who accepts any money should be excommunicated.

VII. Obligations of the Clergy (1) Before ordination. Those who are chosen for the holy orders must be: 1. Sure that the call came to them from God. “No man taketh this honour of the holy orders) unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” (Heb. 5: 4)

2. Blameless, in order to be good examples to the congregation. ST. Paul wrote to Timothy saying : “Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (1 Tim. 4: 12) In 1 Tim. 3, and Tit. 1, St. Paul mentioned many conditions which should be taken into consideration when choosing bishops and deacons.

(2) After ordination. 1. They should serve not as hired men who work merely to get their wages. “Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.” (1 Pet. 5:2) “He that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.” (John 10:12)

2. But they should be good shepherds, full of deep feeling that the sheep are theirs, and that they are responsible for keeping them from beasts and for feeding them. They should also know that the good shepherd must be ready to offer any sacrifice that may be needed for the sake of the sheep. “The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)

The Orthodox Church Sacraments Rev. Marcus Daoud Tinsae Zagubae Printing Press May 1952 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No...that's a lie...God never "calls Homosexuals" to chastity....rather to repentance and becoming a new creature in Christ...putting off of the old man of sin.

Individuals can be former thieves, former pornographers, and former homosexuals, but they cannot be those things and be Christian also.

You're engaging in an imprecise use of nomenclature. You draw incorrect conclusions ("rather than a source of pride," "devises behavior for them," "the catholic church says retains the name for the, and allows the title to stay"). And you have a selective and idiosyncratic understanding of human nature, sin, scripture, and even words that doesn't comport with scripture or with experience. You make contradictory statements: "God never "calls Homosexuals" to chastity....rather to repentance." Repentance isn't a feeling or an attitude or intent. It is action. What in the world do you think chastity is but repentance in action? It's exactly the same thing as being a "former thief." The bad behavior ceases and is replaced by good behavior.

Let's put on our thinking caps here, okay? If you're a former thief who never before was a compulsive gambler, do you think that when temptation comes, it'll be in the form of an urge to visit the nearest OTB location? If you used to be an inveterate liar who never engaged in occult practices, do you think that when temptation comes, it'll be in the form of an urge to go buy a Ouija board or to engage in automatic writing?

It appears that no matter what someone says or how clearly he says it, you find a way to turn the polemic back to your idiosyncratic approach. Could that be your besetting sin?

>>You didnt answer the question, that is, where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is ones sole source. Maybe there is no verse in all of Scripture where it says that Scripture is ones sole source.<<

Well, we could start here to get an idea.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Obviously the “noble” thing to do is check with scripture on even things Paul and Silas were teaching. Then we have the example of Jesus. How many times did Jesus say “it is written” to back up what He was saying? If even Jesus and Paul want what they are saying backed up by scripture you can count on the fact that I’m going to check with scripture to see what some guy in a pointy hat is teaching.

As Jesus ascended into heaven He did not yell down back at the Apostles--READ MY BOOK!

There was no book, only the 12 men Jesus left, with Peter, the rock, as the one on whom Jesus built His Church. THEY, the Apostles, and Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the 27 documents in the New Testament.

The Magesterium, the synod of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, decided, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on WHICH documents were to make up the New Testament. That happened in 380, 400 and 420 A.D. That Council of the Magesterium was called by the POPE.

So it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to use the Scripture as the sole source, since it was the group of men who wrote the documents, thus verifying APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the Magesterium which decided on which documents to MAKE UP that New Testament, which further adds to the APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

Protestants, de facto accepted the decisions of the Magesterium, hundreds of years AFTER Jesus rose from the dead.

So, you must, by logic, believe in the APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM as being sources, beyond the Bible.

Nowhere does it say in the New Testament that those 27 documents were the SOLE SOURCE, otherwise, the Apostles, and Paul, would have WRITTEN it so.
They would never have said so because it would have negated their own Apostolic Tradition.
The Magesterium would have never said so because it would have negated its own authority.
The Pope, who called that council to decide on which documents were to be authenic words for the New Testament would have negated his own authority-which would have been disobedient to Jesus' given authority to Peter at Caesare Philippi.

>> with Peter, the rock, as the one on whom Jesus built His Church.<<

Believe what the RCC tells you if you wish but I will believe what God through scripture says

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

The misinterpretation of one verse does not abbrogate what the rest of scripture says.

>> The Magesterium, the synod of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, decided, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on WHICH documents were to make up the New Testament. That happened in 380, 400 and 420 A.D. That Council of the Magesterium was called by the POPE.<<

Might I remind you that it was only two generations after God saved just one individual and his family through the distruction of the entire earths population in Noah that the example of the worst evil was exemplified in Noah’s great grandson Nimrod? Paul commended the Bereans for not even trusting his spoken words but “searched the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”. The preservation of God’s word was not to the credit of the CC but to God Himself. It is not always the faithful who God uses for His purposes.

>> So, you must, by logic, believe in the APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM as being sources, beyond the Bible.<<

Complete nonsense. I can “search the scriptures” and know that the RCC has fallen far from what Jesus and the apostles taught.

As you say, "The Rock" is a Name of God. That Name is specially published by Moses in the Song of Moses which is sung in heaven along with the Song of the Lamb.

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

Sadly, that Name of God was lost in translation of Deuteronomy 32:1-4 which begins the Song of Moses.

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

The Name of God as "The Rock" is however preserved elsewhere in Scripture as you have shown. My favorite:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

Also, God called the first in each covenant "the rock:"

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18

As I recall from reading an excerpt written by Pope Benedict, the Name of God "The Rock" has not been lost by him.

But I do wonder if people in their zeal to make sure others recognize that Peter is first called "rock" have forgotten that "The Rock" is a Name of God.

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. – Psalms 91:4

God's Name is The Rock.

Complete nonsense. I can “search the scriptures” and know that the RCC has fallen far from what Jesus and the apostles taught.

What's more, you accepted the Apostolic Tradition and Magesterium TWO other times, as follows, chronologically:

1. Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter, in 49 A.D. to define what the Gentiles had to do to become Christians. The Jews, who were the Bishops before 70 A.D. wanted the Gentiles to become Jewish and embrace the entire Mosaic law. The Gentiles did not want to do that. Paul was their voice. So the MAGESTERIUM, all the bishops at the time and Peter, the Bishop of Rome and POPE, met in Jerusalem. Paul convinced Peter and Peter convinced the rest of the Magesterium. The Gentiles needed to do only three things to become Christian. Thus the work of the Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium.
Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's simple history.

2. The Council of Nicea, called by the Pope, brought together the Magisterium again, to combat the heresy Aryianism. The outcome was the Nicene Creed.

So the Magesterium, called those THREE times by the POPE, successor of Peter, first bishop of Rome, decided:
What you needed to be a Christian,
What the tenets of your faith were, and
Which 27 documents (There were hundreds of documents circulating around the early Church and the Magesterium had to authenticate those documents that were valid.) were to be the New Testament.

And you say it's baloney. Okay. That's enough from you. God help you. The Catholic Church gathered together the Scripture of the New Testament and not until 420 A.D. That also is just simple history. Before THAT it was APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the MAGESTERIUM. They PRECEDE the BOOK we know as the New Testament.
But, DON'T believe history, according to the world view of EVEN well read Protestants, believe your own world view according to you. You're dead wrong but then I have the world behind me and your have your own misinterpretation.

>>Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's simple history.<<

Already did.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Who was it again who said My sentence is?

Don’t give me that crap from the CC that Peter was the leader. If he was it would have been him who made the final decision.

>> Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter<<

How about we read scripture before we believe that RCC lie?

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they (Who? certain men) determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them (Who? Some of the certain men), should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

It was not Peter who called the meeting. It was the “certain men who decided they should go to Jerusalem to meet with all the apostles to decide. Peter spoke at that meeting as did Barnabas and Paul, it was then that the leader of the group, James made the decision and said wherefore my sentence is. There is no way anyone could conclude from that passage that Peter was in a leadership position in any way. It’s another lie from the RCC.

The entire basis of the hierarchy of the RCC is built on a lie. As a matter of fact they cannot prove that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome let alone the first Pope. Paul wrote to the Romans and never once mentioned Peter being there. No one did. He was NOT the leadership in Rome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.