Apostolic succession is the belief that the spiritual authority, teachings, and ministerial powers given by Jesus to the apostles have been continuously passed down through an unbroken line of bishops. The Cathodox claim to possess this succession, but we believe they have lost it because they’ve departed from the doctrines that were entrusted to them in the beginning. We know that the doctrines of the church are the most important part of apostolic succession because if a bishop begins to teach false doctrines, he gets deposed and excommunicated! So contrary to the Cathodox claim, a bishop’s ordination isn’t the most important part of apostolic succession, but rather his preservation of the apostolic deposit. Irenaeus says:
For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great benefit [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3
The early church fathers stressed the necessity of obeying the bishop, because bishops are entrusted with the responsibility of preserving Christ’s doctrines. However, the church fathers also stressed the necessity of fleeing heretical bishops who break off from the rest and teach their own doctrines. It’s true that Ignatius said every Christian must submit to their bishop. But for every quote you’ll find from Ignatius where he commands us to submit to the bishop, you’ll find just as many where he tells you to get away from the bishop if he’s a heretic. First he says:
Obey the bishop and the presbyters with an undivided mind. – Ignatius, To the Ephesians, Chapter XX
Being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified. – Ignatius, To the Ephesians, Chapter II
He who does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience. – Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter VII
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. – Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, chapter 3
Let everyone reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ; and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father; and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no church. – Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter III
Wow, that sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it? After reading this, you would almost get the impression that if a bishop suddenly dies or becomes apostate, then the church in that city ceases to exist. But that’s not what they believed at all. On the contrary, Ignatius wrote ALL seven of his letters while he was on his way to Rome to be executed, and this is one of the last things he wrote, in anticipation of his martyrdom:
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God as its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop – He and your love. – Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, chapter 9
So you can see, he doesn’t think the church in Syria would suddenly cease to exist just because they lost their bishop, but rather, he taught that the church would continue on, even if its bishop died, and that JESUS would act as their bishop. Ignatius also stresses that all Christians must stay away from evil bishops, who teach false doctrines and destroy their flocks along with themselves:
Let not those who seem to be worthy of credit, but teach strange doctrines, astonish you. Stand firm like an anvil that is being struck. It is the part of a great athlete to be beaten and to conquer. Especially for the sake of God ought we to endure all things, that he also may endure us. Become more zealous than you are. Understand the times. Await him who is above time, the timeless, the invisible, who for our sakes became visible, the untouchable, the impassible, who for our sakes became passible, who in every way endured for our sakes. – Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 3
Therefore, children of the light of truth, flee division and evil doctrines; and where the shepherd is, there, like sheep, follow. For many plausible wolves with evil pleasure take captive those who run the course of God; but in your unity they will have no place. Abstain from the evil weeds, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found division among you, but a straining out. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the bishop; and as many as repent and come to the unity of the church, these also will be of God, so that they may live according to Jesus Christ. “Be not deceived, my brothers;” if anyone follows a schismatic, “he does not inherit the kingdom of God;” if anyone walks in a strange opinion, this one does not consent to the passion. – Letter to the Philadelphians, chapter 2-3
Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that listens to him. – Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 16
So you can see that we Christians are commanded to “come to the unity of the church,” and avoid schismatic groups that contradict the early church’s teachings. We’re not allowed to follow a church that teaches a strange doctrine which contradicts the original church. Contrary to what the Cathodox think, these statements from Ignatius are not an endorsement of the Orthodox church. They’re clear instructions that we should seek out the original teaching of the church and cleave to that. And if it turns out that the Orthodox church and the Catholics have gone astray from the early church’s teachings, that means THEY are the heretics and schismatics, not us, and according to Ignatius, we should stay away from them. You’re not a heretic or a schismatic if you flee from heretical bishops. And in fact, the ONLY way to know whether a church is the true church is to compare what they’re teaching with the early church.
Likewise, the Cathodox love to quote Cyprian, where he says every true Christian must submit to their bishop. But they never tell you that Cyprian ALSO stresses that you should FLEE from a heretical bishop!
First Cyprian says:
And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. – Cyprian, Treatise 1, chapter 5
Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. – Cyprian, Treatise 1, chapter 6
Wow, it sounds like Cyprian would absolutely never tolerate anyone breaking communion with their bishop under any circumstances. But guess what? In Cyprian’s other letters, he ALSO commands us to stay away from heretical, idolatrous bishops!
When we had come together, dearly beloved brethren, we read your letters, which according to the integrity of your faith and your fear of God you wrote to us by Felix and Sabinus our fellow bishops, signifying that Basilides and Martial, being stained with the certificates of idolatry, and bound with the consciousness of wicked crimes, ought not to hold the episcopate and administer the priesthood of God; and you desired an answer to be written to you again concerning these things, and your solicitude, no less just than needful, to be relieved either by the comfort or by the help of our judgment. Nevertheless to this your desire not so much our counsels as the divine precepts reply, in which it is long since bidden by the voice of Heaven and prescribed by the law of God, who and what sort of persons ought to serve the altar and to celebrate the divine sacrifices. For in Exodus God speaks to Moses, and warns him, saying, Let the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest the Lord forsake them (Exodus 19:22). And again: And when they come near to the altar of the Holy One to minister they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die (Exodus 28:43). Also in Leviticus the Lord commands and says, Whosoever has any spot or blemish upon him, shall not approach to offer gifts to God (Leviticus 21:17).
Nor let the people flatter themselves that they can be free from the contagion of sin, while communicating with a priest who is a sinner, and yielding their consent to the unjust and unlawful episcopacy of their overseer, when the divine reproof by Hosea the prophet threatens, and says, “Their sacrifices shall be as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be polluted” (Hosea 9:4) teaching manifestly and showing that all are absolutely bound to the sin who have been contaminated by the sacrifice of a profane and unrighteous priest. Which, moreover, we find to be manifested also in Numbers, when Korah, and Dathan, and Abiram claimed for themselves the power of sacrificing in opposition to Aaron the priest. There also the Lord commanded by Moses that the people should be separated from them, lest, being associated with the wicked, themselves also should be bound closely in the same wickedness. Separate yourselves, said He, from the tents of these wicked and hardened men, and touch not those things which belong to them, lest you perish together in their sins. Numbers 16:26 On which account a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones. For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces.
The Cathodox misrepresent the fathers to be saying everyone MUST be submitted to an earthly bishop in order to be saved, as if they contradicted themselves, but in reality, they taught that Christ alone will act as your bishop if your earthly bishop has either died or become an apostate:
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God as its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop – He and your love. – Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, chapter 9
Similarly, in the Apostolic Constitutions, there are numerous commands to obey the bishop, with many threats about eternal damnation if the bishop is disobeyed, in perfect agreement with Ignatius:
As, therefore, it was not lawful for one of another tribe, that was not a Levite, to offer anything, or to approach the altar without the priest, so also do you do nothing without the bishop; for if any one does anything without the bishop, he does it to no purpose. For it will not be esteemed as of any avail to him. For as Saul, when he had offered without Samuel, was told, “It will not avail for you;” 1 Samuel 13:13 so every person among the laity, doing anything without the priest, labours in vain. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, Section 4, chapter XXVII
The bishop, he is the minister of the word, the keeper of knowledge, the mediator between God and you in the several parts of your divine worship. He is the teacher of piety; and, next after God, he is your father, who has begotten you again to the adoption of sons by water and the Spirit. He is your ruler and governor; he is your king and potentate; he is, next after God, your earthly god, who has a right to be honoured by you. For concerning him, and such as he, it is that God pronounces, I have said, You are gods; and you are all children of the Most High. And, You shall not speak evil of the gods. Exodus 22:28 For let the bishop preside over you as one honoured with the authority of God, which he is to exercise over the clergy, and by which he is to govern all the people. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, Section 4, chapter XXVI
Wow, the bishop is even called our earthly god! Surely this means we must obey without every questioning his authority under any circumstances, right? But look what else is said:
But he who does not consider these things, will, contrary to justice, spare him who deserves punishment; as Saul spared Agag, and Eli his sons, who knew not the Lord. Such a one profanes his own dignity, and that Church of God which is in his parish. Such a one is esteemed unjust before God and holy men, as affording occasion of scandal to many of the newly baptized, and to the catechumens; as also to the youth of both sexes, to whom a woe belongs, “add a mill-stone about his neck” (Matthew 18:6-7), and drowning, on account of his guilt. For, observing what a person their governor is, through his wickedness and neglect of justice they will grow skeptical, and, indulging the same disease, will be compelled to perish with him; as was the case of the people joining with Jeroboam, and those which were in the conspiracy with Corah. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, Section 3, chapter X
In other words, if a congregation tolerates the sin of a priest or fellow Christian, they are guilty of a conspiracy, and will perish along with him!
It is your duty, O bishop, neither to overlook the sins of the people, nor to reject those who are penitent, that you may not unskilfully destroy the Lord’s flock, or dishonour His new name, which is imposed on His people, and you yourself beest reproached as those ancient pastors were, of whom God speaks thus to Jeremiah: Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard; they have polluted my heritage. Jeremiah 12:10 And in another passage: My anger is growing hot against the shepherds, and against the lambs shall I have indignation. Zechariah 10:3 And elsewhere: You are the priests that dishonour my name. Malachi 1:6 – Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, Section 3, chapter XVXIX . Hear, O you bishops; and hear, O you of the laity, how God speaks: I will judge between ram and ram, and between sheep and sheep. And He says to the shepherds: You shall be judged for your unskilfulness, and for destroying the sheep. That is, I will judge between one bishop and another, and between one lay person and another, and between one ruler and another (for these sheep and these rams are not irrational, but rational creatures): lest at any time a lay person should say, I am a sheep and not a shepherd, and I am not concerned for myself; let the shepherd look to that, for he alone will be required to give an account for me. For as that sheep that will not follow its good shepherd is exposed to the wolves, to its destruction; so that which follows a bad shepherd is also exposed to unavoidable death, since his shepherd will devour him. Wherefore care must be had to avoid destructive shepherds. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, Section 3, chapter XIX
So you can clearly see that God puts the responsibility to avoid destructive shepherds on the sheep. These two commands are not contradictory. Both are true at the same time: Obey the bishop and don’t perform the Eucharist apart him, but flee from him if he’s ungodly.
During the Arian crisis, all true believers fled from the Arian bishops. Are we to believe they were damned for doing this? Were they damned by God for obeying the church’s explicit command to flee heretical bishops? Listen to the Apostolic Constitutions, telling you to gather as a church in a house, without a priest, if the priest is an ungodly man:
But if it be not possible to go to the church on account of the unbelievers, you, O bishop, shall assemble them in a house, that a godly man may not enter into an assembly of the ungodly. For it is not the place that sanctifies the man, but the man the place. And if the ungodly possess the place, avoid it, because it is profaned by them. For as holy priests sanctify a place, so do the profane ones defile it. If it be not possible to assemble either in the church or in a house, let every one by himself sing, and read, and pray, or two or three together. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, chapter 34
Tell me, you Cathodox, is Apostolic Constitutions commanding you to be damned when it tells us to separate from evil priests and have house-church? Can a person be saved without an earthly priest? Listen again to Athanasius saying the same thing, during the Arian crisis:
Who indeed has not been injured by their calumnies? Whom have not these enemies of Christ conspired to destroy? Whom has Constantius failed to banish upon charges which they have brought against them? When did he refuse to hear them willingly? And what is most strange, when did he permit any one to speak against them, and did not more readily receive their testimony, of whatever kind it might be? Where is there a Church which now enjoys the privilege of worshipping Christ freely? If a Church be a maintainer of true piety, it is in danger; if it dissemble, it abides in fear. Every place is full of hypocrisy and impiety, so far as he is concerned; and wherever there is a pious person and a lover of Christ (and there are many such everywhere, as were the prophets and the great Elijah) they hide themselves, if so be that they can find a faithful friend like Obadiah, and either they withdraw into caves and dens of the earth, or pass their lives in wandering about in the deserts. These men in their madness prefer such calumnies against them as Jezebel invented against Naboth, and the Jews against the Saviour; while the Emperor, who is the patron of the heresy, and wishes to pervert the truth, as Ahab wished to change the vineyard into a garden of herbs, does whatever they desire him to do, for the suggestions he receives from them are agreeable to his own wishes. – Athanasius, History of the Arian Controversy, chapter 53
May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you [hold] the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith is within you. Let us consider which is greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. (After a little:) But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,’ but ‘My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, foreigners had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them, in their ignorance, punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them? For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the church alone. – Athanasius, Fragment (appended to Letter 29)
So if Christians were commanded to flee heretical bishops, and they were blessed by God for being brave enough and loyal enough to the truth to leave the apostate church, it’s absurd to suggest a person is automatically a schismatic and a stranger to the church, just because they’ve separated themselves from heretical priests. We’re obeying the tradition of the church, which was handed down by apostolic succession, that we should separate ourselves from sinful priests. The Cathodox friends are all condemning the early church when they condemn us. The whole early church AND post-Nicene church rejected this idea that a Christian must absolutely be submitted to SOME earthly bishop, even if he’s a flaming heretic. Rather than having this debate about the necessity of being under an earthly bishop, he should focus on proving that his church really ISN’T heretical, so that the rest of us can have peace of mind about joining it.
Sacraments Apart from Bishops:
But a person will naturally ask, “If I’m supposed to flee from an evil priest, how am I supposed to be saved? How can I have the sacraments?” There are only two logical possibilities. If it’s already been established that you absolutely must flee from heretical bishops, then the answer is: either the laity can offer the sacraments in these emergency situations, or the laity can somehow be saved without the sacraments. These are the only options.
Even the Orthodox will say God can make exceptions to the rule. If you ask them, “How can a person be saved if they never heard of Christ, or if they live in a country where there are no Orthodox parishes?” they’ll say, “It’s not our place to judge. God can save those people by some extraordinary means.” But we don’t rely on ambiguous ideas or hopeful speculation about how a person can be saved if their bishop is an apostate. The church has told us SPECIFICALLY what we’re supposed to do if there are no available bishops to baptize or administer the Eucharist.
Just so you understand, a person can be saved without the Eucharist. If a person dies immediately after baptism without having the Eucharist, they are not damned. They’re perfectly clean in God’s sight. The eucharist is medicine for the soul. Most people commit sins after baptism, and the eucharist is the assurance from God that they are cleansed of it (although God requires true repentance, and they can be punished if they take it while unrepentant). It is possible that a baptized person who dies without the eucharist could be saved, but they will pay for every sin they committed after baptism, and no one would want to do that. We should be having the Eucharist if we’re able to.
Can the Christian laity baptize? Yes. We know that from Athanasius’ story, and we hear that it happened many times. With Athanasius, they only asked the boys one thing: what words did you say? Because it was only the words that mattered, not the one who performed the baptism.
Are there any church fathers who say any baptized layman can offer the eucharist? Yes. Tertullian appeals to Callistus’ own belief.
So did Tertullian reject the authority of bishops? Of course not! He was as adamant about the bishop’s authority as every other church father, always stressing the necessity of apostolic succession and of submission to the bishop. He even explicitly says that we ought to receive the Eucharist from no one but the bishop:
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers. – Tertullian, Prescription Against All Heresies, chapter 32
We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. – Tertullian, The Chaplet, chapter 3
For concluding our brief subject, it remains to put you in mind also of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving it, the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops, or priests, or deacons, be on the spot, other disciples are called i.e. to the work. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any: in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God’s property, can be administered by all. But how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen— seeing that these powers belong to their superiors — lest they assume to themselves the specific function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle has said, that all things are lawful, but not all expedient. Let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule, if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person compels you (so to do); for then the steadfast courage of the succourer, when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature’s loss if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow. – Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter 17
And yet this same Tertullian believes the laity CAN and MUST baptize and offer the eucharist in the absence of a bishop:
Are not even we laics priests? It is written: A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, has He made us. It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer [the eucharist], and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behooves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest. If you are a digamist, do you baptize? If you are a digamist, do you offer? How much more capital (a crime) is it for a digamist laic to act as a priest, when the priest himself, if he turn digamist, is deprived of the power of acting the priest! “But to necessity,” you say, “indulgence is granted.” No necessity is excusable which is avoidable. In a word, shun to be found guilty of digamy, and you do not expose yourself to the necessity of administering what a digamist may not lawfully administer. God wills us all to be so conditioned, as to be ready at all times and places to undertake (the duties of) His sacraments. – Tertullian, an Exhortation to Chastity, chapter 7
But doesn’t Ignatius say only the bishop can offer the eucharist? You use Ignatius, but this passage only serves to bury you. Does Ignatius say the same thing about baptism needing to be performed by a priest as he does about the eucharist needing to be performed by a priest? And did the early church consider baptisms performed by the laity to be legitimate or not? So if Ignatius puts baptism and the eucharist in the same category of things that can ONLY be performed by a priest, and the whole church accepts the baptisms performed by laymen as long as they follow the apostolic formula, it follows that the church also accepted that the eucharist could be consecrated by laymen, even though it SHOULD be consecrated by a bishop under normal circumstances.
Okay, this solves the issue of whether the laity can baptize or offer the eucharist. But what about a non-baptized person baptizing someone else? Does a non-baptized person have the power to baptize?
How convenient is it that God allowed a great controversy to arise on this issue IMMEDIATELY after Christianity was legalized, which the church settled once and for all. The Donatist sect arose in the early 300s and questioned the legitimacy of baptisms and eucharists made by evil, heretical, excommunicated priests. It said that the sacraments were only valid if the minister was worthy. All of the post-Nicene fathers rejected this. Augustine was the one who wrote the most on this subject out of any father. Augustine says the sacraments are “everywhere valid,” and that it’s not the minister who bestows the Holy Spirit, but God. He points out how John the Baptist was able to baptize Jesus, and yet he acknowledged, “I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” which serves to prove the baptizer doesn’t need to have been baptized in order to validly baptize.
This is now the official teaching of the Catholic church, that absolutely anyone can baptize, and the Orthodox church generally accepts the baptisms of protestants who come to them as long as they were done in the correct formula, but some rigorists in the Orthodox religion seems to agree more with the Donatists than the rest of the church. Now this is ironic: Our Cathodox opponents want everyone to believe we don’t possess apostolic succession, but he would have to say all of the church fathers who agreed with Augustine’s position were heretics, because they’re perverting the proper reception of the most essential sacrament of the faith! If these Cathodox condemn the whole church for agreeing with Augustine, they become a Donatists, which is the very thing they accused US of being when we separated ourselves from corrupt priests, and they are forced to say the whole church lost apostolic succession by accepting as valid the two most essential sacraments for salvation from people who were outside of the church!
Did Cyprian expect the laity to have the Eucharist apart from an evil bishop when he commanded those congregations to flee from corrupt priests? Well, Cyprian read Tertullian obsessively, every day in fact. He had read Tertullian’s teaching on this subject. What do you think? Augustine was also reading the same writings from Tertullian and Cyprian because he was a Latin father living right next to Carthage, so he accepted the same notion. The Donatist heresy mostly spread in Africa, which is where Augustine lived, and his books were considered sufficient by the rest of the church for refuting the heresy.
In the orthodox church, there’s one branch in particular that insists on rebaptizing protestant converts, and it’s the Antiochene sect. They strictly require that all protestant converts be rebaptized, and yet they remain in communion with all the other orthodox groups that accept protestant baptisms as legitimate! How can they disagree on such a fundamental issue that affects the salvation of their members?
One of the great hypocrisies of the rigorist Antiochene Orthodox Church is that they reject baptisms that are performed by protestants, but they accept baptisms performed in the catholic church! Do you realize what this means? Since the Catholics accept baptisms performed by protestants, and don’t rebaptize them when they’re received into the catholic church, then the orthodox church DOES accept baptisms performed by unbaptized people! In fact, the waters are so muddied, no one could possibly have confidence they came from an unbroken lineage of legitimately baptized people, because the catholic church has allowed many millions of protestants to join their church, and many of those protestants who became catholic have become priests, who perform baptisms on others!