Here are some brief write-ups about the conference. The main keynote was from Bp. Conley of Lincoln.
 |
| Bp. Conley giving keynote at St. Mary's Cathedral. Picture by Jennifer Donelson. |
Showing posts with label clerical hierarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clerical hierarchy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Society for Catholic Liturgy conference, Oct 2-4, 2014, in Colorado Springs
This past weekend I presented a paper at the annual conference of the Society for Catholic Liturgy, in Colorado Springs. St. Mary's Cathedral was a great venue for the conference, and it was great to meet some new people and hear some quite excellent papers and presentations.
Here are some brief write-ups about the conference. The main keynote was from Bp. Conley of Lincoln.
My paper was called "Order of Levitical Blessing: Fruitfully Reclaiming a Patristic, Liturgical Typology of the Diaconate." I argued that the Latin Church very early developed a theology of the diaconate based on the type of the Levite, the second priesthood (after that of Aaron) of the Old Testament. We can see this type used in a wide variety of sources, liturgical and non-liturgical. I sketched out the main lines of development of the type, noting its moral arguments and its theological implications for relationships among the grades of Holy Orders, and I examined the use of the type in the ordination rites of deacons in the Latin Church (citing texts from the Leonine Sacramentary, Gelasian Sacramentary, Gregorian Sacramentary, Missale Francorum, Liber Ordinum (Mozarabic Rite), and Tridentine (1595) Pontificale Romanum), and comparing the much more limited use of the type in the current (2012 English edition) Pontificale. I showed how the Tradition had developed an understanding of specific blessings or graces for the Church in the separate ministry of deacons, complementing that of other orders, and how that idea disappeared from the current recension of the rite, because it used only New Testament passages to develop a (slightly different) theology of the diaconate. I therefore suggested that re-introducing the previous Old Testament typology to our understanding of the rite and of the diaconate would greatly add to the Church's reflection on the renewal of the diaconate, and help us answer key questions about certain aspects of its sacramentality, and about its distinctive place within the layers of the Church's ministry.
Here are some brief write-ups about the conference. The main keynote was from Bp. Conley of Lincoln.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Deacon as Ἄγγελος, Angel or Herald
 |
| sanctuary of the Cathedral of the Epiphany |
In this window, the angel is wearing a dalmatic.
I pondered the better part of that year, week after week, what it meant that angels wear dalmatics, and what sort of "angel" I could be as a deacon. I still think of those reflections, and what I learned in that time, each time I see that window.
Dcn. Bill Ditewig recently had a rather nice post on his blog on this topic, to which I was refered yesterday. He makes the point correctly that this symbolism of angels wearing dalmatics is vital to the Eastern theological understanding of the diaconate, and less so the Western, but is a dominant tradition in the artistic representation of both angels and deacons even in the West (as in our Cathedral).
He doesn't, however, make the further point about what the word "deacon" (διάκονος) actually means. The usual English translation is "servant," and that's alright in a very general sort of way. But "servant" in English carries a wide range of connotations, from "slave" to "butler" to "trusted advisor," that only partially overlaps with the connotations of "deacon" in koine Greek. One end of that range of connotations is occupied by other Greek words (e.g. "doulos," "slave" or "personal servant," which is also used frequently in the New Testament), while the connotation of the New Testament's "deacon" word group is rather different from the range of "servant." It means more specifically something like "ambassador," "messenger," or "herald" (as John Collins' meticulous study "Diakonia" (Oxford UP, 2009) showed). This is why the translation into Latin has always been "minister," which has a very similar range of connotations (consider the usual governmental context of "minister" as a title today), and not something like "servus," "slave" (the root, e.g., of our English "servant" and "serf").
In other words, it's not just in art and in theology that the connection between angels and deacons is made, but that connection itself derives from the overlapping semantic content of the two words. Both are "sent from" someone else, and wield (a share of) that person's own authority. And thus, to push even further, the third word that fits directly into this same semantic weave is "apostle" (ἀπόστολος), lit. "one who is sent." Indeed, just as the Father sends Christ the Son, and Christ sends the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, so also the bishops perforce send (priests and) deacons to extend their ministry to all (e.g., Lumen Gentium #18-20). And the intimate connection between deacons and bishops that, say, St. Ignatius of Antioch makes flows also from this understanding of ministry and mission.
| St. Gabriel |
At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed "not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service."(74*) For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: "Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all."(75*)
...the "ministry of service" the Council Fathers have in mind is, in its essence, that share of the apostolic ministry first entrusted by the Apostles to the Seven chosen in Acts 6, and which we see carried out by St. Stephen and Philip in Acts 7 and 8, namely, the proclamation of the Good News by word and witness, and the bringing of people into union with Christ through baptism and through inviting them to receive the full ministry of the Apostles themselves. And this is also what the ordination rite clearly means when, as the bishop hands the Evangelarium to the newly ordained deacon, he says, "Receive the Gospel of Christ, whose herald you now are; believe what you read, preach what you believe, practice what you preach."
Two other implications then flow from this, both of which are contested points about the diaconate today. First, just as angels only do what God sends them to do, so deacons must exercise their ministry within ecclesial structures. For most deacons, this means a parish assignment and an active presence in the parish's liturgical and ministerial life. (One could also be assigned to other ecclesial institutions, e.g. diocesan offices, schools, hospitals, apostolates, etc. But all of these are "ecclesial" in the same sense, that of obedience to and communion with the local bishop.) Whatever ministry a deacon undertakes, it must remain connected with the apostolic center, and with the altar. Deacons are not "extra-ecclesial" ministers in the sense that they function "beyond" the institutions of the Church. The fact that most permanent deacons are married and have jobs outside the Church confuses this greatly. Certainly in those roles deacons remain deacons, and should preach Jesus Christ (especially by example), but it is not for this that they are ordained; all the baptised should do as much, each according to vocation and state in life.
 |
| 2014 ordination of permanent deacons, in the same Cathedral |
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
In Defense of the Transitional Diaconate - theological argument from "sacra potestas"
In the historical argument for the transitional diaconate, we noted that the grades of Holy Orders have, from the beginning and always, been received in a "cumulative and sequential" manner. Even when grades (either minor or major) were skipped, this remained true - there is zero evidence that anyone anywhere was ever ordained to the diaconate after the priesthood, or the subdiaconate after the diaconate, etc., even if that grade had previously been skipped. This is important, because it shows that the apostolic pattern has been maintained always and everywhere, even if some of the details of which orders are included, and which not (cantors, catechists, gravediggers, deaconesses, etc.), took more time to decide. Thus, the standard hierarchy of four minor orders (porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte) and four major orders (subdeacon, deacon, priest, bishop) became fixed for the Latin Church even as early as the third century, and were invariably received in this order by roughly 700.
This apostolic pattern in favor of the transitional diaconate is also supported by two potent theological arguments. One is the "sacra potestas" argument. The other, which we won't broach in this post, is the unity of the sacrament argument.
We'll briefly look at the sacra potestas argument in five questions.
1. What is a "sacra potestas?" A sacra potestas is a "sacred power," that is, a piece of Christ's own divine power, given explicitly to the Apostles, and passed on by them to their successors and helpers by the laying on of hands and (eventually) the precise ritual of ordination to each grade.
These "sacred powers" are obviously rather important, because they are precisely that for which Christ gave us the sacrament of Holy Orders. At the very least, He willed the Church to have bishops to rule, to confirm, and to ordain; priests to confect the Eucharist and to forgive sins; and deacons to proclaim the Gospel. And, given what the Magisterium of the Church is in fact, we must also admit that the subdiaconate and the minor orders also were part of what He willed, at least for the temporality of the Church, if not for her divine constitution (i.e., they are consistent with the will of Christ, but not constituent of it, as bishops, priests, and deacons are).
The hierarchy of "sacred powers," then, is the essence, the "what," of Christ's divine ministry carried out by the Church. It guides how the sacraments are poured out for the people. It defines what is and is not "ecclesial" and "secular," in their particular spheres of human activity (see St. Augustine's "City of God," or Pope Gelasius's "two swords" doctrine, etc.). And it fundamentally shapes the pastoral care of the Church, without defining the "how" of that care dogmatically.
2. Does every grade have a "sacra potestas?" All the major orders have a sacred power. The ordination rites of the Latin Church - I'm looking at those used from roughly 700 until the reforms of Vatican II - were extremely clear about the power given to each grade, both in the words used, and in the symbols. (The current rites have shifted emphasis away from the powers of each grade, and so are not nearly so clear about them.) The power was explicitly conveyed, usually with the formula "Receive the power of... (Accipe potestatem...)" according to each grade.
Moreover, the sacred powers of the bishop and of the priest were clearly and dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, most coherently at Trent (especially Session XXIII), but not uniquely at that Council. Bishops have the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the apostolic power of governance of the Church, and the power to confirm and to ordain. In the ordination rite, the bishop-elect was ordained when the consecrating bishops each put their hands on his head and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The other powers were enumerating in the signs of the rite: chrismation of the hands, giving of the pastoral staff, ring, and miter, and giving of the Gospels (apostolic commission).
Priests have the power to confect the Eucharist "in persona Christi," and to absolve from sins (Confession and Anointing). In the ordination rite, the newly ordained priest was then told, "Receive the power to offer the sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses, as much for the living as for the dead."
The exact sacred power of the deacon (or the subdeacon) has never been dogmatically defined with this same precision. But it is dogmatic that the deacon has sacred power (Trent, Session XXIII, chapter 4; Lumen Gentium 18), and this has always been understood of the subdeacon, too, although not to my knowledge asserted dogmatically. Major Orders convey powers, and the lex orandi is the lex credendeni. Thus, what is true of bishop and priest in the ordination rite is also true of deacon (and subdeacon) in the same rite.
3. What is the deacon's "sacra potestas?" This has never, as far as I know, be dogmatically defined. However, for more than twelve centuries, every deacon ordained in the Latin Church was told, "Receive the power of reading the Gospels in the Church of God, as much for the living as for the dead." Nor is there any other tradition about the deacon's sacred power floating around out there. The Church has always believed, then, and expressed clearly in her lex orandi, that the deacon's sacred power is to proclaim the Gospel within the Church.
This is why reading the Gospel is the deacon's characteristic function within the Church's liturgy. This function is the most immediate manifestation of the deacon's sacred power, in exactly the same way that presiding at Mass and offering Confession and Absolution are the most immediate manifestations of the priest's sacred power. It should be noted, however, that while the priest always exercises his sacred power "in persona Christi," such that it is in fact Christ who changes bread and wine into His own Body and Blood, and Christ who says, "I absolve you...," there's no parallel tradition of the deacon acting "in persona Christi."
The other parts of the deacon's ministry, of sacrament and of charity, relate to the proclamation of the Gospel in fairly direct ways. The Gospel is at the root of all the Church's teachings, so catechesis and sacramental preparation are derivative forms of proclaiming the Gospel. Baptism is the beginning of receiving the Gospel in the Church, so deacons can baptize (e.g., Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch). The Gospel must be proclaimed in action as well as by words, so deacons "sacramentalize the service of the Church," as Pope John Paul II put it.
Again, this is exactly parallel to how the other parts of a priest's ministry relate to the Eucharist (e.g., Lumen Gentium 28 - see more below); and to how the various parts of a bishop's ministry in the "fullness of orders" fit together in the three-fold responsibility to govern, sanctify, and teach.
4. Where in the Gospel does Christ give the Apostles such a power? Lk 9:1-6 is the most clear (parallel passages in Mt 10 and Mk 6). The Twelve receive the power to "keryssein" (preach, herald), and they went out "euaggelizomenoi" ("gospelizing," proclaiming the Gospel or coming of the Kingdom). Luke is most interesting on this point, because in Lk 10, he recounts a separate commission for the 72 disciples, with a different vocabulary of what exactly they are commissioned to do. They are not given a power ("dynamis"), but told only to "say" ("legete," 10:8) the Kingdom is coming.
This same power to "kerygein" the "kerygma," and to "euaggelizein," that is, to proclaim the Good News, is precisely what is given by the Twelve to the Seven in Acts 6, by the laying on of hands. Philip, using this gift of sacred power, explicitly "kerygein-ed" Christ to the Samaritans (8:5), many of whom were healed of demons and baptized; and "euaggelizein-ed" Christ to the eunuch (8:35), who was also baptized. Stephen's trial before the Sanhedrin is unmistakably a "kerygma," completed in his martyrdom (baptism of blood), which led directly to the conversion of the witness Saul.
5. How does this defend the transitional diaconate? The end of the deacon's proclaiming the Gospel, in every ministerial context, is the relationship of the hearer with Christ. In the case of initial conversion, that means baptism first; in the case of the baptized, it means the Eucharist. Deacons proclaim in order to bring people to Christ, and the deepest union with Christ in this life is the Eucharist.
The wisdom of the Tradition is that proclaiming leads to deeper union with Christ. Priests also have the power of proclaiming, in order to make their ministry of uniting and reconciling (Eucharist and absolution) more accessible and more fruitful. The one leads naturally to the other. (This is as it must be, if there is in fact one priesthood of Christ in the New Covenant; but we needn't get into the unity argument here.)
Lumen Gentium 28 states most clearly the theological relationship of the power of proclaiming to the power of confecting and absolving, in the ministry of priests:
By the power of the sacrament of Orders, in the image of Christ the eternal high Priest, they are consecrated to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful and to celebrate divine worship, so that they are true priests of the New Testament. Partakers of the function of Christ the sole Mediator, on their level of ministry, they announce the divine word to all. They exercise their sacred function especially in the Eucharistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming His Mystery they unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of their Head and renew and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass until the coming of the Lord the only sacrifice of the New Testament, namely that of Christ offering Himself once for all a spotless Victim to the Father. For the sick and the sinners among the faithful, they exercise the ministry of alleviation and reconciliation and they present the needs and the prayers of the faithful to God the Father.
To be true priests of Christ, both in His image and "in persona," priests must preach the Gospel, shepherd the people to Christ, and celebrate the sacraments. They cannot mediate like Christ the Mediator without announcing the Gospel. They cannot unite the faithful to the sacrifice of the altar without proclaiming the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection. This is simply what it means to be a priest of Jesus Christ.
If, however, priests were not ordained deacons first, then they would never receive the sacred power of proclaiming. Like the 72 disciples, they would be able to "say" the Kingdom, but not "proclaim" it with "power and authority." The healing sacraments would be disconnected from the Word, quite contrary to what Luke clearly says in 9:1-6, or what the Church has clearly stated in LG 28. They would not be able to preach in the same ministerial acts as shepherding and celebrating; they would not be able to mediate like Christ, and they would not be able to unite the faithful to the sacrifice of the altar.
This apostolic pattern in favor of the transitional diaconate is also supported by two potent theological arguments. One is the "sacra potestas" argument. The other, which we won't broach in this post, is the unity of the sacrament argument.
We'll briefly look at the sacra potestas argument in five questions.
1. What is a "sacra potestas?" A sacra potestas is a "sacred power," that is, a piece of Christ's own divine power, given explicitly to the Apostles, and passed on by them to their successors and helpers by the laying on of hands and (eventually) the precise ritual of ordination to each grade.
These "sacred powers" are obviously rather important, because they are precisely that for which Christ gave us the sacrament of Holy Orders. At the very least, He willed the Church to have bishops to rule, to confirm, and to ordain; priests to confect the Eucharist and to forgive sins; and deacons to proclaim the Gospel. And, given what the Magisterium of the Church is in fact, we must also admit that the subdiaconate and the minor orders also were part of what He willed, at least for the temporality of the Church, if not for her divine constitution (i.e., they are consistent with the will of Christ, but not constituent of it, as bishops, priests, and deacons are).
The hierarchy of "sacred powers," then, is the essence, the "what," of Christ's divine ministry carried out by the Church. It guides how the sacraments are poured out for the people. It defines what is and is not "ecclesial" and "secular," in their particular spheres of human activity (see St. Augustine's "City of God," or Pope Gelasius's "two swords" doctrine, etc.). And it fundamentally shapes the pastoral care of the Church, without defining the "how" of that care dogmatically.
2. Does every grade have a "sacra potestas?" All the major orders have a sacred power. The ordination rites of the Latin Church - I'm looking at those used from roughly 700 until the reforms of Vatican II - were extremely clear about the power given to each grade, both in the words used, and in the symbols. (The current rites have shifted emphasis away from the powers of each grade, and so are not nearly so clear about them.) The power was explicitly conveyed, usually with the formula "Receive the power of... (Accipe potestatem...)" according to each grade.
Moreover, the sacred powers of the bishop and of the priest were clearly and dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, most coherently at Trent (especially Session XXIII), but not uniquely at that Council. Bishops have the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the apostolic power of governance of the Church, and the power to confirm and to ordain. In the ordination rite, the bishop-elect was ordained when the consecrating bishops each put their hands on his head and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The other powers were enumerating in the signs of the rite: chrismation of the hands, giving of the pastoral staff, ring, and miter, and giving of the Gospels (apostolic commission).
Priests have the power to confect the Eucharist "in persona Christi," and to absolve from sins (Confession and Anointing). In the ordination rite, the newly ordained priest was then told, "Receive the power to offer the sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses, as much for the living as for the dead."
The exact sacred power of the deacon (or the subdeacon) has never been dogmatically defined with this same precision. But it is dogmatic that the deacon has sacred power (Trent, Session XXIII, chapter 4; Lumen Gentium 18), and this has always been understood of the subdeacon, too, although not to my knowledge asserted dogmatically. Major Orders convey powers, and the lex orandi is the lex credendeni. Thus, what is true of bishop and priest in the ordination rite is also true of deacon (and subdeacon) in the same rite.
3. What is the deacon's "sacra potestas?" This has never, as far as I know, be dogmatically defined. However, for more than twelve centuries, every deacon ordained in the Latin Church was told, "Receive the power of reading the Gospels in the Church of God, as much for the living as for the dead." Nor is there any other tradition about the deacon's sacred power floating around out there. The Church has always believed, then, and expressed clearly in her lex orandi, that the deacon's sacred power is to proclaim the Gospel within the Church.
This is why reading the Gospel is the deacon's characteristic function within the Church's liturgy. This function is the most immediate manifestation of the deacon's sacred power, in exactly the same way that presiding at Mass and offering Confession and Absolution are the most immediate manifestations of the priest's sacred power. It should be noted, however, that while the priest always exercises his sacred power "in persona Christi," such that it is in fact Christ who changes bread and wine into His own Body and Blood, and Christ who says, "I absolve you...," there's no parallel tradition of the deacon acting "in persona Christi."
The other parts of the deacon's ministry, of sacrament and of charity, relate to the proclamation of the Gospel in fairly direct ways. The Gospel is at the root of all the Church's teachings, so catechesis and sacramental preparation are derivative forms of proclaiming the Gospel. Baptism is the beginning of receiving the Gospel in the Church, so deacons can baptize (e.g., Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch). The Gospel must be proclaimed in action as well as by words, so deacons "sacramentalize the service of the Church," as Pope John Paul II put it.
Again, this is exactly parallel to how the other parts of a priest's ministry relate to the Eucharist (e.g., Lumen Gentium 28 - see more below); and to how the various parts of a bishop's ministry in the "fullness of orders" fit together in the three-fold responsibility to govern, sanctify, and teach.
4. Where in the Gospel does Christ give the Apostles such a power? Lk 9:1-6 is the most clear (parallel passages in Mt 10 and Mk 6). The Twelve receive the power to "keryssein" (preach, herald), and they went out "euaggelizomenoi" ("gospelizing," proclaiming the Gospel or coming of the Kingdom). Luke is most interesting on this point, because in Lk 10, he recounts a separate commission for the 72 disciples, with a different vocabulary of what exactly they are commissioned to do. They are not given a power ("dynamis"), but told only to "say" ("legete," 10:8) the Kingdom is coming.
This same power to "kerygein" the "kerygma," and to "euaggelizein," that is, to proclaim the Good News, is precisely what is given by the Twelve to the Seven in Acts 6, by the laying on of hands. Philip, using this gift of sacred power, explicitly "kerygein-ed" Christ to the Samaritans (8:5), many of whom were healed of demons and baptized; and "euaggelizein-ed" Christ to the eunuch (8:35), who was also baptized. Stephen's trial before the Sanhedrin is unmistakably a "kerygma," completed in his martyrdom (baptism of blood), which led directly to the conversion of the witness Saul.
5. How does this defend the transitional diaconate? The end of the deacon's proclaiming the Gospel, in every ministerial context, is the relationship of the hearer with Christ. In the case of initial conversion, that means baptism first; in the case of the baptized, it means the Eucharist. Deacons proclaim in order to bring people to Christ, and the deepest union with Christ in this life is the Eucharist.
The wisdom of the Tradition is that proclaiming leads to deeper union with Christ. Priests also have the power of proclaiming, in order to make their ministry of uniting and reconciling (Eucharist and absolution) more accessible and more fruitful. The one leads naturally to the other. (This is as it must be, if there is in fact one priesthood of Christ in the New Covenant; but we needn't get into the unity argument here.)
Lumen Gentium 28 states most clearly the theological relationship of the power of proclaiming to the power of confecting and absolving, in the ministry of priests:
By the power of the sacrament of Orders, in the image of Christ the eternal high Priest, they are consecrated to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful and to celebrate divine worship, so that they are true priests of the New Testament. Partakers of the function of Christ the sole Mediator, on their level of ministry, they announce the divine word to all. They exercise their sacred function especially in the Eucharistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming His Mystery they unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of their Head and renew and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass until the coming of the Lord the only sacrifice of the New Testament, namely that of Christ offering Himself once for all a spotless Victim to the Father. For the sick and the sinners among the faithful, they exercise the ministry of alleviation and reconciliation and they present the needs and the prayers of the faithful to God the Father.
To be true priests of Christ, both in His image and "in persona," priests must preach the Gospel, shepherd the people to Christ, and celebrate the sacraments. They cannot mediate like Christ the Mediator without announcing the Gospel. They cannot unite the faithful to the sacrifice of the altar without proclaiming the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection. This is simply what it means to be a priest of Jesus Christ.
If, however, priests were not ordained deacons first, then they would never receive the sacred power of proclaiming. Like the 72 disciples, they would be able to "say" the Kingdom, but not "proclaim" it with "power and authority." The healing sacraments would be disconnected from the Word, quite contrary to what Luke clearly says in 9:1-6, or what the Church has clearly stated in LG 28. They would not be able to preach in the same ministerial acts as shepherding and celebrating; they would not be able to mediate like Christ, and they would not be able to unite the faithful to the sacrifice of the altar.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
In defense of the Transitional Diaconate - an historical argument
Recently, Dcn. Greg Kandra picked up a ruminative post by Catholic blogger Dr. Gerard Nadal, wondering about the significance of the footwashing at the Last Supper (Jn 13). It goes beyond the Tradition's reading of this passage to see in it two ordinations (that is, Christ separately instituting both the diaconal and the priestly grades of Holy Orders in this way), but Dr. Nadal's main point was perfectly correct:
The very first commenter on Dcn. Greg's post brings up the question of the "transitional" diaconate, which we've talked about before. It's not as much a tangent as it seems; if Acts 6 really is the hierarchy of Holy Orders in nascent form, replicating the experience of the Apostles receiving sequential and cumulative gifts of authority for ministry (wherever one might locate those gifts in the Gospels), then the "transitional" diaconate is implied therein. Thus, the commenter asks, "But I’m wondering if there is evidence that the practice goes back to earlier patristic or even apostolic times. I ask because Deacon Bill Ditewig has written that it is not necessary–and, with the permanent diaconate restored, perhaps not desirable either."
I disagree with Dcn. Ditewig rather substantially on this point. I argue that the prior ordination to the diaconate of candidates to the priesthood (what we now call the "transitional" diaconate) is not only theologically sound, but that it is theologically necessary, and that it is the majority position attested in the Tradition.
So here, in a very schematic form, is the historical argument from the Tradition in favor of the "transitional" diaconate. The theological arguments will take other posts to engage.
In the earliest years of the Church, the Apostles are alive and using fully the various pastoral and sacramental powers given by Christ. It's not debated that whatever authority the Apostles had in the earliest Church was given by Christ, nor that they used that authority in accordance with what Christ willed for them. As the Church was growing in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the Apostles saw the need for pastoral help, and foresaw the need for continuity in Christ's pastoral powers, so they "ordained" (some quibble over the semantics of that word) the Seven as deacons, and individually, they recruited others also (Paul ordains Timothy, e.g.) as "elders" ("prebyteroi", i.e. priests/bishops). There's no stable vocabulary yet, and the roles are to some extent still being worked out in practice, but some elements (laying on of hands, basic relationship to Eucharist ("presbyteroi" confect, deacons assist and distribute), authority to teach, community with the original Twelve, etc.) are consistently recognizable even in the earliest period.
After the deaths of the Apostles (many in the 60's) and destruction of the Temple in 70, the authority of the Apostles is clearly handed on in full to their successors (Paul to Timothy, John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, Peter to Linus to Cletus to Clement, etc.). The two distinct subordinate degrees of sharing in that apostolic authority are recognizably stabilizing into priesthood and diaconate; the three highest grades are already in place. The letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, ca. 90, clearly shows this hierarchical relationship well-formed (see ch 40-42), as do the Didache (ca. 90-100), the letters of St. Ignatius from ca. 115 (e.g, To the Trallians), the First Apology of Justin Martyr (ca. 150; see ch. 65-67), and several other sources. By the end of the first century, the Church has firmly established as its governance one bishop per urban church (what will become a "diocese"), with several priests and deacons to assist; along with the basic rules about the bishop's legitimacy through apostolic succession, etc. The details of that structure have changed over the centuries, as the world has changed, but the primary elements of that plan developed very quickly and have remained remarkably stable ever since.
In these first- and second-century sources, there's little evidence that this clear hierarchy means the same hierarchical sequence in receiving Orders; but also little evidence that it doesn't mean this. In this stage of development, the existence of the hierarchy is clear, and the main duties of each of the three grades is clear, but the manner(s) of ordaining, not clear.
We have more information by the third century. The subdiaconate and various minor orders are attested from the third century (e.g. Pope Cornelius's letter to Bp Fabian of Antioch, 251 or 252; this state of affairs in Rome is clearly not new). These too are arranged in the same hierarchy, under the grades of bishop, priest, and deacon. By the middle of the third century, we have a glimpse of what is considered normal practice in the Life of Cyprian: Cyprian was a young convert from paganism, and the strength and maturity of his faith was deemed great enough to call him to Orders very quickly after his baptism: "In short, in respect of God's grace, there was no delay, no postponement—I have said but little—he immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood. For who is there that would not entrust every grade of honour to one who believed with such a disposition?" We're not told specifically how he was advanced to the priesthood (and not long after, to become Bishop of Carthage), but the author, Pontius the Deacon, does say he's skipping most of the details. Note also the implication (not definitive, I admit) that Cyprian was in fact "entrusted with every grade of honor," that is, with each of the grades of minor and major orders.
This implication is significantly stronger when we see the ordination of the priest Novatian in Rome, at the same time as Cyprian in Carthage. He had been baptized in danger of death, and never confirmed. He was ordained a priest, apparently without going through the preceding grades, and this was unusual enough to cause much comment by the clergy of Rome and elsewhere. He still functioned as a priest, so his ordination wasn't deemed invalid, but it was clearly not the norm in Rome about 250 to ordain without confirmation, or to skip the lower grades (at least the diaconate) before the priesthood.
Most probably, what these implications mean is that Cyprian would have (and Novatian should have) received the grades of lector and deacon: in the fourth century, the Council of Sardica (343), canon 13 (or 10 in some lists), mandates receiving the lectorate before diaconate, and diaconate before priesthood, and priesthood before episcopate. Again, this is pretty clearly not a new arrangement, but reflects normative practice and expectation.
Lastly, the ordination of Ambrose in 374 is most notable. Multiple sources attest to the circumstances of his selection as Bishop of Milan by popular acclaim, after the death of the Arian bishop Auxentius. Ambrose was a catecumen (pretty normal in the fourth century to postpone baptism), so over the course of 8 days he was baptized, confirmed, and received all the grades of minor and major orders in sequence. To my knowledge, this is the earliest example of which we are completely certain of this pattern.
In practice, we have examples from most of the first thousand years of the Church, in which someone "skips a grade" - deacon directly to bishop, subdeacon or acolyte directly to priest, etc. But even in these cases, it seems that "cumulative and sequential" is being observed in some way. This pattern of cumulative and sequential ordination, as we noted, reflects the pattern of Christ's preparation of the Apostles. It stands as the normative pattern, even if its implementation (which grades in which order) does not become standardized until rather late.
One of the best examples of promoting the full (all grades, in order) understanding of the cumulative-and-sequential pattern is Caesarius of Arles (bishop, 502-547). He was one of the great bishops of the early Church, whose leadership in the chaos of early Merovingian Gaul proved to be an anchor for the next thousand years. Not the least of his works was the promotion of good preaching and good order among the clergy. He wrote a summary of canons and ideals about the clergy, sometimes called "Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua (Ancient Statutes of the Church)," which codified both the what and the how of the eight grades of minor and major orders, in the manner which became universal in the Latin Church, until the recent changes of Pope Paul VI.
Bishops like Caesarius, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great promoted a good use of the sequence of grades, using it to prepare men for the next grade and to hold back, without losing all the gifts of, those who weren't suitable to advance. Going through all the steps in order has never, in and of itself, been a problem for the clergy. It is a mistake to conflate the hierarchy and sequence of the clerical grades with the so-called "cursus honorum" (clerical careerism, and other abuses of the hierarchical system). Unfortunately, Dcn. Ditewig makes this mistake in promoting doing away with the transitional diaconate. Keeping the transitional diaconate does not imply keeping the abuses labelled as "cursus honorum," but does imply maintaining the apostolic and evangelical model of cumulative spiritual gifts and authority for the ministry. Detailing exactly what gifts and authority would be lost to priests without the transitional diaconate will take us into the theological arguments, in another post.
“If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.”
With those words, Jesus conformed His apostles to Himself as servants, and this before He instituted the Eucharist. Going ahead to the dilemma of the Apostles in Acts, we see them exercising their ministry of service until the growth of the Church placed too many demands on them. When they laid hands on the seven they were transmitting what had been given to them at the Last Supper, namely, the ministry of service.
One might more precisely say that Christ gave the Apostles the "ministry of service" in several pieces, not only at the Last Supper, and that the Apostles gave the Seven only a specific portion of the ministry of service they had already received - namely, that ministry for serving the Church through preaching, evangelizing, and baptizing, but not including the Eucharist or Confirmation (see the ministry of Stephen and Philip, recorded in Acts 7 and 8).The very first commenter on Dcn. Greg's post brings up the question of the "transitional" diaconate, which we've talked about before. It's not as much a tangent as it seems; if Acts 6 really is the hierarchy of Holy Orders in nascent form, replicating the experience of the Apostles receiving sequential and cumulative gifts of authority for ministry (wherever one might locate those gifts in the Gospels), then the "transitional" diaconate is implied therein. Thus, the commenter asks, "But I’m wondering if there is evidence that the practice goes back to earlier patristic or even apostolic times. I ask because Deacon Bill Ditewig has written that it is not necessary–and, with the permanent diaconate restored, perhaps not desirable either."
I disagree with Dcn. Ditewig rather substantially on this point. I argue that the prior ordination to the diaconate of candidates to the priesthood (what we now call the "transitional" diaconate) is not only theologically sound, but that it is theologically necessary, and that it is the majority position attested in the Tradition.
So here, in a very schematic form, is the historical argument from the Tradition in favor of the "transitional" diaconate. The theological arguments will take other posts to engage.
In the earliest years of the Church, the Apostles are alive and using fully the various pastoral and sacramental powers given by Christ. It's not debated that whatever authority the Apostles had in the earliest Church was given by Christ, nor that they used that authority in accordance with what Christ willed for them. As the Church was growing in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the Apostles saw the need for pastoral help, and foresaw the need for continuity in Christ's pastoral powers, so they "ordained" (some quibble over the semantics of that word) the Seven as deacons, and individually, they recruited others also (Paul ordains Timothy, e.g.) as "elders" ("prebyteroi", i.e. priests/bishops). There's no stable vocabulary yet, and the roles are to some extent still being worked out in practice, but some elements (laying on of hands, basic relationship to Eucharist ("presbyteroi" confect, deacons assist and distribute), authority to teach, community with the original Twelve, etc.) are consistently recognizable even in the earliest period.
After the deaths of the Apostles (many in the 60's) and destruction of the Temple in 70, the authority of the Apostles is clearly handed on in full to their successors (Paul to Timothy, John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, Peter to Linus to Cletus to Clement, etc.). The two distinct subordinate degrees of sharing in that apostolic authority are recognizably stabilizing into priesthood and diaconate; the three highest grades are already in place. The letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, ca. 90, clearly shows this hierarchical relationship well-formed (see ch 40-42), as do the Didache (ca. 90-100), the letters of St. Ignatius from ca. 115 (e.g, To the Trallians), the First Apology of Justin Martyr (ca. 150; see ch. 65-67), and several other sources. By the end of the first century, the Church has firmly established as its governance one bishop per urban church (what will become a "diocese"), with several priests and deacons to assist; along with the basic rules about the bishop's legitimacy through apostolic succession, etc. The details of that structure have changed over the centuries, as the world has changed, but the primary elements of that plan developed very quickly and have remained remarkably stable ever since.
In these first- and second-century sources, there's little evidence that this clear hierarchy means the same hierarchical sequence in receiving Orders; but also little evidence that it doesn't mean this. In this stage of development, the existence of the hierarchy is clear, and the main duties of each of the three grades is clear, but the manner(s) of ordaining, not clear.
We have more information by the third century. The subdiaconate and various minor orders are attested from the third century (e.g. Pope Cornelius's letter to Bp Fabian of Antioch, 251 or 252; this state of affairs in Rome is clearly not new). These too are arranged in the same hierarchy, under the grades of bishop, priest, and deacon. By the middle of the third century, we have a glimpse of what is considered normal practice in the Life of Cyprian: Cyprian was a young convert from paganism, and the strength and maturity of his faith was deemed great enough to call him to Orders very quickly after his baptism: "In short, in respect of God's grace, there was no delay, no postponement—I have said but little—he immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood. For who is there that would not entrust every grade of honour to one who believed with such a disposition?" We're not told specifically how he was advanced to the priesthood (and not long after, to become Bishop of Carthage), but the author, Pontius the Deacon, does say he's skipping most of the details. Note also the implication (not definitive, I admit) that Cyprian was in fact "entrusted with every grade of honor," that is, with each of the grades of minor and major orders.
This implication is significantly stronger when we see the ordination of the priest Novatian in Rome, at the same time as Cyprian in Carthage. He had been baptized in danger of death, and never confirmed. He was ordained a priest, apparently without going through the preceding grades, and this was unusual enough to cause much comment by the clergy of Rome and elsewhere. He still functioned as a priest, so his ordination wasn't deemed invalid, but it was clearly not the norm in Rome about 250 to ordain without confirmation, or to skip the lower grades (at least the diaconate) before the priesthood.
Most probably, what these implications mean is that Cyprian would have (and Novatian should have) received the grades of lector and deacon: in the fourth century, the Council of Sardica (343), canon 13 (or 10 in some lists), mandates receiving the lectorate before diaconate, and diaconate before priesthood, and priesthood before episcopate. Again, this is pretty clearly not a new arrangement, but reflects normative practice and expectation.
Lastly, the ordination of Ambrose in 374 is most notable. Multiple sources attest to the circumstances of his selection as Bishop of Milan by popular acclaim, after the death of the Arian bishop Auxentius. Ambrose was a catecumen (pretty normal in the fourth century to postpone baptism), so over the course of 8 days he was baptized, confirmed, and received all the grades of minor and major orders in sequence. To my knowledge, this is the earliest example of which we are completely certain of this pattern.
In practice, we have examples from most of the first thousand years of the Church, in which someone "skips a grade" - deacon directly to bishop, subdeacon or acolyte directly to priest, etc. But even in these cases, it seems that "cumulative and sequential" is being observed in some way. This pattern of cumulative and sequential ordination, as we noted, reflects the pattern of Christ's preparation of the Apostles. It stands as the normative pattern, even if its implementation (which grades in which order) does not become standardized until rather late.
One of the best examples of promoting the full (all grades, in order) understanding of the cumulative-and-sequential pattern is Caesarius of Arles (bishop, 502-547). He was one of the great bishops of the early Church, whose leadership in the chaos of early Merovingian Gaul proved to be an anchor for the next thousand years. Not the least of his works was the promotion of good preaching and good order among the clergy. He wrote a summary of canons and ideals about the clergy, sometimes called "Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua (Ancient Statutes of the Church)," which codified both the what and the how of the eight grades of minor and major orders, in the manner which became universal in the Latin Church, until the recent changes of Pope Paul VI.
Bishops like Caesarius, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great promoted a good use of the sequence of grades, using it to prepare men for the next grade and to hold back, without losing all the gifts of, those who weren't suitable to advance. Going through all the steps in order has never, in and of itself, been a problem for the clergy. It is a mistake to conflate the hierarchy and sequence of the clerical grades with the so-called "cursus honorum" (clerical careerism, and other abuses of the hierarchical system). Unfortunately, Dcn. Ditewig makes this mistake in promoting doing away with the transitional diaconate. Keeping the transitional diaconate does not imply keeping the abuses labelled as "cursus honorum," but does imply maintaining the apostolic and evangelical model of cumulative spiritual gifts and authority for the ministry. Detailing exactly what gifts and authority would be lost to priests without the transitional diaconate will take us into the theological arguments, in another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)