Sequential or Direct Ordination?: A return to the Sources 9781463219796

Citation preview

Sequential or Direct Ordination?

Gorgias Liturgical Studies

53

This series is intended to provide a venue for studies about liturgies as well as books containing various liturgies. Making liturgical studies available to those who wish to learn more about their own worship and practice or about the traditions of other religious groups, this series includes works on service music, the daily offices, services for special occasions, and the sacraments.

Sequential or Direct Ordination?

A return to the Sources

John St. H. Gibaut

gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-404-2

ISSN 1937-3252

Published first in the U.K. by Grove Books, 2003.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents Introduction

3

1

The Pre-Nicene Period

7

2

The Post-Nicene Period

17

3

The Medieval Period

23

4

The Reformation

29

5

The Modern Period

33

6

The Restoration of the Diaconate

35

7

Conclusion

40

Copyright John St G Gibaut 2003

THE COVER PICTURE the ninth-century Raganaldus is a Portrait of the Seven Ecclesiastical Orders from tl Sacramentan/

First Impression June 2003 ISSN 0951-2667 ISBN 1 85174 534 3

Introduction Tucked away within the 2001 statement of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC), entitled Anglican Ordination Rites, The Berkeley Statement: 'To Equip the Saints', is a short recommendation that could radically reorientate Anglican understandings of the three-fold ministry. The brief paragraph with the heading 'Direct Ordination' states: 'Because the three orders are viewed as distinct ministries, direct ordination to the presbyterate, and even the possibility of direct ordination to the episcopate, are being advocated by some in the Anglican Communion. There is historical precedent for both sequentia I and direct ordination. In the pre-Nicene church, direct ordination was commonly practised, and sequential ordination did not become universal until the eleventh century. Provinces may therefore wish to consider the possibility of direct ordination to the episcopate and to the presbyterate.'' This particular paragraph is perhaps the most revolutionary of the entire document. The traditional processes, whereby candidates are ordained to the diaconate as a first step towards the presbyterate, and candidature to the episcopate is limited to those who have been presbyters for a certain prescribed number of years, could well be superseded by another pattern. According to this recommendation, lay people could be ordained directly to the presbyterate without ever having served as deacons. Logically, a deacon or even a lay person could be elected and ordained as a bishop. While the IALC recommendation notes both historical precedent for the current practice and even more ancient precedent for direct ordination, it leaves begging a rather important question: beyond sheer antiquarianism, why would provinces of the Anglican Communion 'wish to consider the possibility of direct ordination to the episcopate and to the presbyterate'? Or, as has been raised as a critique of the recommendation, do a number of historical exceptions to the practice of sequential ordination in any way justify its abolition in favour of direct ordination to all or any of the major orders? The IALC recommendation anticipates the answer in the first sentence: since the orders of ministry are viewed as 'distinct' ministries, direct ordination is advocated by some Anglicans. From the 1970s, challenges to the practice of sequential ordination have been raised by proponents of the restoration of the diaconate as a distinct order, particularly in North America and the United Kingdom. More recently, some American and Canadian Anglicans have argued that as long as candidates for the presbyterate must first be ordained deacons according to the longstanding practice of sequential ordination—the cursus honorum—the diaconate can hardly be a distinct order with its own integrity, but 1

Paul Gibson, ed., Anglican Ordination Riles, The Berkeley Statement: 'To Equip the Saints', Findings of the Sixth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation, Berkeley, California, 2001 (Grove Books, Cambridge, 2002), p. 9. [Emphasis added.]

3

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

will be no more than a stepping-stone. Consequently they argue for direct—per saltum—ordination to the presbyterate for those called to that order without an anterior ordination to the diaconate. Even for those who would not consider direct ordination an option, preaching at diocesan ordinations to the diaconate is notoriously difficult, eliciting all sorts of homiletic inventiveness to explain the significance of a transitional office which is evident in neither the contemporary liturgical rites nor the proclaimed scriptures. Others argue that the practice of sequential ordination threatens the distinctiveness of the presbyterate. What does it mean to require an anterior diaconal ordination for a lay reader who has been the pastoral leader of a parish community for years before the church has discerned a vocation to the presbyterate? What does it mean in a monastic setting, for instance, to ordain a lay abbot or abbess to the diaconate before he or she is ordained a presbyter, the ministry to which the wider church and their particular community has called them? What does it mean for a minister from a non-episcopal tradition, who has already has requisite presbyteral formation and experience, to be ordained a deacon for a period of days, weeks, or months? What does it mean to ordain any people deacons for a matter of days or weeks before ordination as presbyters? When the exercise of the diaconate is neither intended nor discerned, in what ways is the presbyterate a distinct ministry if it relies so clearly on a previous ordination to the diaconate? At a time when lay people can be as theologically well educated as the clergy, when their faith, spirituality and mission are as profound as those of the clergy, and when they often have much more sophisticated skills and experience of leadership, conflict resolution, communication, pastoral care, and the like, what does it mean to restrict candidature to the episcopal office to presbyters alone? Is the episcopate a distinct office which calls forth the best candidates—lay and ordained—or is it some sort of antepenultimate form of the presbyterate? While the argument from the 'distinctiveness' of ministry may surface in the more developed provinces of the Anglican Communion, to what extent does the practice of sequential ordination hinder the mission of those provinces that struggle to maintain the life and mission of the church? Is leadership of local and wider communities enhanced or diminished when only deacons can be presbyters, and only presbyters can be bishops? For Anglicans around the world, the inherited canonical tradition of sequential ordination may limit our ability to discern and hear with the Spirit those who have the gifts and calling for pastoral leadership. Current reflection on the distinct nature of each of the holy orders from catholic tradition, particularly the diaconate, clearly drives the present discussion. It should be noted, however, that historically within Anglicanism, the earliest discussion around per saltum ordination is an ecumenical one. In the early and mid-seventeenth century Church of England, Anglican debates around sequential and direct ordination were occasioned by the situation of ordaining nonepiscopally ordained ministers to the episcopate in schemes to reintroduce 4

INTRODUCTION

episcopacy where it had been lost, namely Scotland. The seventeenth-century debate provided the model and terminology of per saltum ordination for twentiethcentury Anglicans, when questions of reunion with non-episcopal churches would be raised again. Specifically: how to ordain candidates for the episcopate in uniting churches from non-episcopal traditions, and thus who had never been ordained deacons and presbyters according to the Anglican clerical cursus? Would such ministers be ordained directly to the episcopate, or sequentially through the diaconate and the presbyterate? These questions raised considerable debate within the Church of England with regard to Home Reunion hopes in the first half of the twentieth century2, and more broadly within the Anglican Communion with regards to plans of unity with non-episcopal traditions in places like South India and North India which succeeded, or in Canada where such schemes failed. Lastly, it should be remembered that while discussion on sequential ordination has a particular history within Anglicanism, it is also an issue in other traditions which have retained the three-fold ministry. Of note is a 1986 Roman Catholic study, Sacrament of Service: A Vision of the Permanent Diaconate Today, by Patrick McCaslin and Michael Lawler. Early in their study they pose the question: 'Does every priest need to approach priesthood through the diaconate?' They suggest that there is a groundswell among supporters of the restored diaconate to remove the anomaly of trying to restore the diaconate as a permanent order while retaining it as a transitional stage as well. 3 Towards the end of their study, McCaslin and Lawler return to the question of sequential ordination from the diaconate to the presbyterate. Throughout, they argue that the diaconate and the presbyterate are different and distinct ministries, with divergent symbolic functions: 'We are saying that we see a need for a serious reassessment of the policy of ordaining transitional deacons, because the policy is perpetuating the institutionalization of contradictory symbols.' 4 If the diaconate is currently a preparation for the presbyterate, they advocate some other form of 'internship' which need not be an ordained ministry or otherwise institutionalized. There are also Orthodox voices which likewise question the integrity of the cursus honorum for those destined to either the presbyterate or the episcopate.5 This introduction to the question of sequential or direct ordination seeks not to come to any conclusions based on precedents of either pattern. An approach based on precedent might well be applicable in a judicial inquiry, but not necessarily in a theological one. It is a matter of historical record that some bishops in the patristic era, such as Ambrose of Milan or Nectarius of Constantinople, were ordained only to the episcopate, without any preparatory ordinations to the diaconate or presbyterate. It is also clear that others, such as Augustine of 2 3 4 5

E.g. John Wordsworth (Bishop of Salisbury), Ordination Problems: Reordination, and, Ordination "Per Solium" and Home Reunion (SPCK, London, 1909). Patrick McCaslin and Michael G. Lawler, Sacrament of Service: A Vision of the Permanent Diaconate Today (Paulist Press, N e w York, 1986), p 14. McCaslin and Lawler, Sacrament of Service, p 124. O n e such voice is Metropolitan J o h n (Zizoulias) of Pergamon, who raised concerns about the cursus honorum in a conversation about the diaconate at the February 2003 meeting of the International C o m m i s s i o n of the Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue, A d d i s Ababa, Ethiopia.

5

SEQUENTIAL

OR

DIRECT

ORDINATION?

Hippo or Gregory of Nazianzus, were presbyters prior to episcopal ordination, but had never been deacons; or, that Leo the Great and Gregory the Great had both been deacons, but never presbyters, prior to episcopal ministry. What is important for this study is not these or innumerable other cases, but the historical and theological contexts in which they occurred. This present treatment is based on historical research into the emergence and subsequent understandings of the tradition of sequential ordination.6 It seeks to assess the practice of sequential ordination in light of its origins and subsequent developments. The time-frame of this assessment includes the primitive church, the post-Nicene, medieval and Reformation periods, and the particular case of seventeenth-century Anglicanism, as well the contemporary church. The purpose of this study, then, is to demarcate the fundamentals of the tradition of sequential ordination—and with it, direct ordination—and what may be the parameters of its adaptation in Anglican ordination practice today. What liturgical historian Robert Taft has said about the liturgy in general, may be applied to the cursus honorum in particular: '... a tradition can only be understood genetically, with reference to its origins and evolution. Those ignorant of history are prisoners of the latest cliché, for they have nothing against which to test it. That is what a knowledge of the past can give us. A knowledge of the future would serve us equally well, but unfortunately that is not yet available to us. T h i s does not mean that our ignorance of the future leaves us enslaved by our past. For we do know the present; and in the present the past is always instructive, but not necessarily normative. What we do today is ruled not by the past but by the adaptation of the tradition to the needs of the present. History can only help us decide what the essentials of that tradition are, and the parameters of its adaptation.' 7

6 7

For a fuller account, please see John St H. Gibaut, The Cursus Honorum: A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination (Peter Lang, New York, 2000). Robert Taft, S.J., The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1986), pp xiv-xv.

6

1

The Pre-Nicene Period The New Testament provides no evidence of sequential movement from one ministry to another, even in the most embryonic forms of what would later emerge as the three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Often terms such as presbuteros and episkopos are used synonymously.8 Even diakonos and episkopos may have been used synonymously. In the one Pauline reference to these offices, in the opening greeting in the letter to the church at Philippi, Paul writes: 'Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons...' (Phil. 1.1, NRSV). While the use of these terms cannot be understood in the later sense of bishop and deacon, their appearance is nonetheless significant. Some commentators suggest that the episkopoi kai diakonoi is a general term which refers to the leaders of the Philippian community.9 By the time of the Pastoral epistles, however, it is clear that bishop and deacon refer to two distinct offices. The third chapter of I Timothy describes the characteristics sought in candidates for the two offices, treated in the descending order of bishop, then deacon. There is nothing in the text which prescribes movement or a sequence between the two. Some confusion, however, has arisen from the sentence at the end of the discussion on deacons: '. . . . for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.' (I Tim. 3.13, NRSV).10 Later generations would happily understand this commendation as a reference to promotion to a higher office, suggesting biblical evidence of sequential ordination. For instance, this fragment appears in ordination texts from the early third-century Apostolic Tradition, through to the fifth-century Leonine Sacramentary, to the ordinals of the Prayer Book tradition. The post-communion prayer for the new deacons in the ordinal asks that they '... may so well behave themselves in this inferior office, that they may be found worthy to be called to the higher ministries in your Church...'

8 9

10

E.g. Acts 20.17-18, 28; Titus 1.5-7. E.g. G. R. Beasley-Murray, 'Philippians' in Matthew Black, ed., Pcake's Commentary on the Bible (Thomas Nelson and Sons, London, 1962), p. 985; Douglas Powell, 'Ordo Presbyterii' in journal of Theological Studies, 26 (1975), p 306. Powell compares this passage to I Corinthians 16: 'In the Pauline tradition we find bishops and deacons. T h e term appears in Phil. 1.1, though with no indication that they as yet imply two distinct offices—I C o r xvi w o u l d suggest rather that m e n [who] " b i s h o p " because they " d e a c o n " , are great a m o n g them because they s e r v e / p 306. Cf. Vulgate: 'Qui e n i m b e n e ministraverint, g r a d u m b o n u m sibi acquirent. . . . '; AV: 'For they that have used the office of d e a c o n well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in Christ Jesus.'

7

S E Q U E N T I A L OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

It is unlikely, however, that the author of I Timothy was referring to any such 'promotion' within the ministries of bishop and deacon. The more probable sense is that deacons who are competent and fervent will win the respect and gratitude of the church." In post-apostolic writings such as the Didache and I Clement, there is no evidence of movement from one ministry to another, prescribed or otherwise, nor even of the various ministries associated with the later cursus honorum except, at best, still in their embryonic form. The second century reveals a variety of relationships between the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate which can only suggest various series or sequences of ministries. For example, although Ignatius of Antioch offers no evidence for, or against, sequential ordination, if it was practised at all in the Ignatian communities, the most likely sequence would have been from the diaconate to the episcopate, since the Ignatian epistles reflect a clear affinity between the diaconate and the episcopate. 12 In the Ignatian churches it is unlikely that presbyters would have become bishops, or that deacons would have become presbyters. By comparison, presbyters succeeded bishops in office in Gaul in the mid-second century and in Alexandria until the early fourth century.13 One might expect to find the same pattern in the second-century Roman Church, given its collegial presbyteral foundation. Yet in the late second century there is probable evidence that deacons also became bishops in Rome. 14 Although the ordination rites of the early third century Apostolic Tradition reflect no expectation of sequential or serial appointment 15 , contemporary biographical evidence confirms its existence in Rome. 16 The works of Tertullian (c.160-220) are important sources for the history of ordered ministry. With the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Tertullian is one of

11

12 13

14

15

16

E.g. W. K. Lowther Clarke, The Concise Bible Commentary (SPCK, London, 1952), p 895; George A. Denzer, 'The Pastoral Epistles' in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1968) p 355; H. Wansborough, 'The Pastoral Epistles' in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture ( T h o m a s Nelson Publishers, Hong Kong, 1984), p 1213; F. F. Bruce, The International Bible Commentary (Marshall P i c k e r i n g / Z o n d e r v a n , G r a n d Rapids, 1986). O n the other hand, Ralph P Martin, in '1, 2 Timothy & Titus' in Harper's Bible Commentary (Harper & Row, San Francisco, Í988), asserts that the phrase does refer to promotion from d e a c o n to bishop (see p 1239). Cf. T h e Epistles to the Ephesians 2, Trallians 3, Philippians 11, Sources Chretiennes 10 (Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1944), 48, 84, 118. E.g., Irenaeus was a presbyter before he b e c a m e bishop of Lyons in 177 The bishops of Alexandria were chosen from, and more than likely installed by, the presbyters of Alexandria. Cf. Jerome, Epistle 146, C S E L 56, 310; Ambrosiaster, Ad Ef'esios I V . l l , C S E L 8 1 / 3 , 1 0 0 . Cf. W. Telpher, 'Episcopal Succession in Egypt' in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 3.1 (1952), 1-13. According to Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical Jiistory 1V.22, Eleutherus, b i s h o p of R o m e 175-189, was a deacon prior to episcopal appointment. Eduard Schwartz, ed., Die Kirkengeschicte, Eusebius Werke 2.1. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderts ( ] . C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1903) 370. Bernard Botte (ed.), La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte (Aschendorffshe Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munster/Westfalen, 1963) pp 2-33; Paul F. Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West (Pueblo, New York, 1990) pp 3, 107-109. E.g., the following third century bishops of R o m e are k n o w n to have been deacons when appointed bishops: Callistus (217-222), Stephen I (254), Sixtus II (257-258); the following are k n o w n to have been presbyters: Hippolytus (antipope, 217-235), Novatian (antipope, 251-258), Cornelius (251-253).

8

THE PRE-NI CENE

PERIOD

the earliest witnesses of a sacerdotal understanding of the episcopate. For example, in De baptismo Tertullian refers to the bishop as 'high-priest.'17 An interesting comment on movement from one ministry to another appears in De praescriptione haereticorum, written c. 198-200, 18 in Tertullian's earlier catholic phase. In chapter 41 he defends the need for order in the church by deriding the disorder among the heretics.19 In this section, which is most likely directed against the Marcionites,20 Tertullian complains that the ordinations performed by the heretics are hasty, irresponsible, and unstable. He complains that in the 'rebels' camp' efforts to win believers are made by promotions: neophytes, those 'bou nd to the world', and catholic apostates are appointed to ministries. Furthermore, appointment to ministries among the heretics was erratic: Tertullian relates that today one person is bishop, the next day another is bishop instead; an individual is a deacon one day and a lector on the next; one is a presbyter today and a lay person tomorrow. Lastly, he complains that sacerdotal functions are imposed on lay people. Commenting on this passage M. Bevenot writes: This public attack on the goings on of heretics would have been impossible if the same practices were current in the Church which he himself was defending.'21 Chapter 41 of De praescript. is not evidence of sequential movement or promotion from one ministry to another. Tertullian's invective is directed against the hasty, irresponsible, and unstable nature of appointment to ecclesiastical ministries among the heretics, and the ensuing confusion between the lay and ordained members of the Marcionite communities. And so, remarking on the same passage Faivre notes: Tertullian does not tell us whether we ought to be presbyters, or deacons or bishops for life, but he calls for a serious approach to the choice of ministers, a certain constancy in the exercise of ministries and functions.'22 It is significant that Tertullian uses the word proficitur—'nowhere', he says 'is it easier to be advanced than in the rebel camp.' Can one conclude that advancement was more difficult in the catholic church? If so, is this a hint or intimation of promotion within the ministries of catholic Christianity in North

17

18 19

20 21 22

'Dandi q u i d e m habet ius s u m m u s sacerdos, qui est episcopus; de hinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tarnen sine episcopi aucloritate, propter ecclesiae h o n o r e m , q u o saluo salva pax est.' Liber de baptismo XVII, CSEL 20.1, p 214; Maurice Bévenot notes that this is the only instance where Tertullian uses sacerdotal language in his early phase. 'Tertullian's Thought about " P r i e s t h o o d " ' in Corona Gratiarum I (Sint Pietersabdij, Brügges, 1975) p 134. Ian S. L. Balfour, 'The Relationship of Man to God, from C o n c e p t i o n to Conversion, in the Writings of Tertullian,' (diss., Univ of Edinburgh, 1980) p. xv; l.ienhard, Ministry, p 122. 'Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes. N u n c neophvtos conlocant, nunc saeculo obstrictos, nunc apostatas nostras, ut gloria eos obligent, quia v e n t a t e non possunt. N u s q u a m facilius proficitur q u a m in castris rebellium, ubi i p s u m esse illic promereri est. Itaque alius hodie episcopus, eras alius, hodie diaconus qui eras lector, hodie presbyter qui eras laicus. N a m et laicus sacerdotalia munera iniungunt.' (Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 41, CSEL 70, p 53) R. F. Refoulé & P. de Labriolle (eds. & comm.), Tertullian: Traité de la prescription contre les Hérétiques, SC 46 (Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1957) p 147 Bévenot, Priesthood, p 130. Alexandre Faivre, The Emergence of the Laity in the Early Church (Paulist Press, N e w York, 1990), p 48.

9

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

Africa in the late second or early third centuries? One notes that in two of Tertullian's complaints there is a (reverse) descending movement between the ministries among the heretics: deacons become lectors, and presbyters become lay people. The nature of this complaint suggests that within the catholic church there was an ascending sequence of ministries, in which lectors normally became deacons, and lay people became presbyters. De praescript. is an example of the extent to which words such as exorcismos, neophytus, laicus, lector, diaconus, presbyter, and episcopus had assumed a technical sense in the church. It is one of the earliest Western texts where the lectorate is mentioned23, as well as being an instance where sacerdotal language (sacerdotalia munera) is used to describe a function of the ordained. Tertullian's use of the word ordinationes is notable; De praescript. is often cited as one of the earliest examples of the use of terminology associated with ordo and ordinationes.24 In the Roman world the term ordo was used to describe specific social classes, in particular the senatorial and equestrian 'orders'. People who belonged to these orders were placed in positions of leadership in the civil and military services of the Empire. As P. M. Gy has noted: 'With the emergence of Christian Latin in Tertullian we see that the analogy of the ordo and the people of the city of Rome was taken up to describe the relationship of the clergy to the people of God.' 25 While Tertullian does not indicate sequential movement in the orders of the clergy parallel to the cursus honorum of the senatorial and equestrian orders, it is not insignificant that he uses the terminology of ordo, thus making an analogy between the church and the imperial institutions which did know sequential movement within the 'orders'. Lastly, one of the great ironies is the fact that later in life, c. 207, Tertullian joined the Montanist sect, where he would have repudiated much of what he had written in De praescript., in particular the lack of order he denounced among the Marcionites. The Apostolic Tradition (AT), a reconstructed text of the early third century, is regarded by the majority of (though not all) scholars to be church order from Rome, c. 215.26 The AT is usually ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome, though its Hippolytan authorship is questionable. 27 Furthermore, it is not clear which Hippolytus is supposed to have composed the AT—the presbyter Hippolytus of Rome (d. ca. 235), or the bishop Hippolytus of Portus Romanus (d. ca. 253).28 At any rate, the AT contains a number of liturgical rites, including the earliest known ordination rites extant.29 While the AT claims to describe the rites known 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Refoule & Labriolle, Tertullian, p 148, note d. E.g. Kenan B. Osborne, Priesthood: A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church (Paulist Press, N e w York, 1988), pp 114-115. P. M. Gy, 'Notes on the Early Terminology of Christian Priesthood' in The Sacrament of Holy Orders (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1962), p 99. Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (OUP, N e w York, 1992), p 91. Bradshaw, The Search, p 91. Bradshaw, The Search, p 91. Dom Bernard Botte, ed., La Tradition Apostoliqne de Saint Hippolyte (Aschendorffshe Verlagsbuchhandlung, M u n s t e r / W e s t f a l e n , 1963).

10

THE PRE-NICENE

PERIOD

in Rome in the early third century, it remains the only account of any ordination rite prior to the fourth century.30 Nonetheless, as Bradshaw warns, caution is needed in using the AT: This church o r d e r . . . deserves to be treated with greater circumspection than has generally been the case, and one ought not automatically to assume that it provides reliable information about the life and liturgical activity of the church in Rome in the early third century.'31 The AT treats the ordinations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons separately, since only these three receive appointment though the imposition of hands. According to the reconstructed text and to the Arabic and Ethiopic versions of the AT,32 the ministries are treated in the descending sequence of bishop 33 , presbyter34, deacon35, confessor 36 , widow 37 , lector38, virgin39, subdeacon 40 , and one with the gifts of healing.41 In the Sahidic text the minor ministries appear in a different sequence42, that is, lector, subdeacon, widow, virgin, one with the gifts of healing. There is no mention of the ministries of acolyte and doorkeeper, which appear in the mid-third-century letter of Cornelius to Fabius. Given the distinctly women's ministries in the sequence(s), the minor ministries cannot be said to appear in a hierarchical sequence suggestive of sequential movement through the grades. It is interesting to note, however, that in the sequences of the reconstructed text and the Sahidic version, the lector appears above the subdeacon. The AT witnesses to a parallel, but distinct, relationship between the bishop and the presbyters on the one hand, and the bishop and the deacon on the other. In the prayer for the ordination of a presbyter (from the Latin version; the Ethiopic is analogous), the bishop prays that the new presbyter might receive the 'spirit of counsel' .43 While Bradshaw understands that the 'spirit of counsel' directs the presbyter to the people 44 , Donovan argues that this expression relates the presbyterate to the bishop as his synedrion, that is, the presbyters assist the bishop in his task of leadership.45 Yet the presbyters are much more than an 'advisory 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Paul Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Church of East and West (Pueblo, N e w York, 1990) p 3. Bradshaw, The Search, p 92. Cf. Alexandre Faivre, Naissance d'ltne Hierarchic: Les premieres ctapes du ????? clerical Theologie Historique 40 (????????????????????, 1977), p 57. Botte, Tradition, II, pp 2-10. Botte, Tradition, VII, pp 20-22. Botte, Tradition, VIII, pp 22-27. Botte, Tradition, IX, pp 28-29. Botte, Tradition, X, pp 30-31. Botte, Tradition, XI, pp 30-31. Botte, Tradition, XII, pp 32-33. Botte, Tradition, XIII, pp 32-33. Botte, Tradition, XIV, pp 32-33. Cf. Faivre, Naissance, p 57 '... . respice super senium tuum istwn et inpartire splirituhn gratiae el consilii praesbyteris ut adiubet et gubemet plebcut tuam in corde niundo . . . .' (Botte, Tradition, VII, p 20). Paul Bradshaw, 'Ordination' in Essays on Hippolytus (Grove Liturgical Studv No. 15, ed. G. j . C u m i n g (Grove Books, Bramcote,1978) p 38.' Daniel Donovan, The Levitical Priesthood and the Ministry of the New Testament (Diss, Munster, 1970), p 4 3 7 .

11

SEQUENTIAL

OR

DIRECT

ORDINATION?

board' to the bishop in the AT; they impose hands on candidates for the presbyterate with the bishop46 and associated with the bishop at the Eucharist where they impose hands together on the eucharistic elements.47 In fact, the AT describes the presbyters as participating in the sacerdotal ministry of the bishop.48 Though Tertullian's De baptismo is one of the earliest texts to describe the episcopate as sacerdotal,49 the AT is the earliest to associate the presbyterate with the 'priesthood' of the bishop. At the same time, the AT also reflects the primitive association of bishop and deacon. For instance, only the bishop imposes hands in the ordination of a deacon, because the deacon is ordained to the service of the bishop.50 The deacon in the AT is clearly described as the servant of the bishop. The liturgical functions mentioned in the ordination prayers of the AT are associated with the bishop and deacon,51 though not with the presbyterate, which is described in terms of governing. 52 Levitical language is used to describe the bishop and the deacon in their respective ordination prayers, but not the presbyter. In addition, Dix asserts that at the time of the AT, bishops and deacons were paid officials of the church, while the presbyters earned their living elsewhere. 53 Osborne notes that the relationship between the deacon and the bishop in the AT is similar to that in the Didascalia apostolorum There is no mention of the qualifications needed to be admitted to any of the major orders in the AT, and thus no clear indication of sequential movement or promotion within the grades. Although the sequence of the ordination rites in the AT is bishop, presbyter, and deacon, if there were any movement from one ministry to another, the natural alliance would be between deacon and bishop. Sequential movement or promotion from the diaconate to the episcopate might be suggested by the petition in the ordination prayer in the deacons' rite, which asks that 'he [the new deacon] may attain the rank of higher order'. 55 The source of this petition is undoubtedly 1 Timothy 3.13. E. Segelberg remarks that a petition for the deacon to accede to higher office is strange, since deacons only occasionally

46 47 48

49 50

51 52 53

54 55

Bolte, Tradition, VII, p 20. Botte, Tradition, IV, p 10. Botte, Tradition, VIII, p 22. Cf. Gerard l.uttenberger, 'The Priest as a Member of a Ministerial College' in Recherches de the'ologie anticline el medieval? 43 (1976) p 38; August Jilek, 'Bischof und PresbyleriunV in Zeitschrift fiir katlwlische Theologie 106 (1984), pp 383-384. Tertullian, Liber de baptismo XVII, CSEL 20.1, p 214.' 'In diacono ordinando solus episcopus inponat nmnus, propterea quia non in sacerdotio ordinatur, sed m ministerio episcopi, ut facial ea quae ab ipso iubentur.' (Botte, Tradition, VIII, p 22), according to the Latin version. The Sahidic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions are analogous. Botte, Tradition, III, pp. 6,8,10; VIII, p 26. Botte, Tradition, VII, p 20. Gregory Dix, 'The Ministry in the Early Church, c. A.D. 90-410' in Kenneth E. Kirk (ed), The Apostolic Ministry (Hodder & Sloug'hton, 1957) p 226. Cf. Karl Baus, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine, Vol. I, H. Jedin and ]. Dolan (eds), The History of the Church (Crossroad, New York, 1986) p 351. Osborne, Priesthood, p 20. '. . . in sancto sanctorum tuo quod tiki offertur a constitute principe sacerdotum tuo ad gloriam nominis tui, ut sine reprehensione el puro more minislrans, gradual maioris ordinis assequatur, et laudet te et glorified te per filium tuum.. . .' (Botte, Tradition, VIII, Ethiopic version, p 26).

12

THE

PRE-N1CENE

PERIOD

succeeded bishops in office.56 W. Geerlings notes that from the text it is not clear to what the words gradum maioris ordinis assequator refer: they could imply promotion in the clerical career, or they could be a figurative reference to the heavenly reward. For Geerlings, the latter interpretation makes more sense from the point of view of the text, since it renders an easier transition to the doxology which concludes the ordination prayer.57 Bradshaw insists that bishops at the time of the AT would have been chosen from among the laity. He argues that, 'since each office was conferred for life and there could be no movement to a higher order' 38 , deacons and presbyters would have been ineligible for election to the episcopate at the time of the AT. Moreover, he notes that the AT directs confessors to be counted within either the presbyterate or diaconate, on account of their suffering. And yet if a confessor were to be elected bishop, he would receive the imposition of hands.59 It is arguable that since a sequence or series of offices was unnecessary for confessors, it would not have been required of other candidates for holy orders. For example, as late as 236, Fabian was a lay person at the time of his election and ordination as bishop of Rome, without having served in any other order.60 Bradshaw concludes that the petition for the new deacon, that he 'may attain the rank of a higher order', is a later adaptation of the text when the situation had changed. Furthermore, it is found only in the Ethiopic version of the AT. He suggests that the original text was similar to the parallel text in the later fourth (or fifth)-century Testamentum Domini", that 'he may be worthy of this high and exalted rank' (Book 1.38). 62 Bradshaw's view accords with some of the interpretations of 1 Timothy 3.13 noted above. If he is correct, then the Apostolic Tradition is evidence of a developed three-fold ministry which neither required nor permitted sequential movement between the orders. E. C. Ratcliff argues a similar point of view. Ratcliff understands the 'charismata' of the Spirit given to deacons and presbyters to be fina I: '[t]here can

56 57 58 59

60

61 62

E. Segelberg, 'The Ordination Prayers in Hippolytus' in Sludia Patrística, 13 (1975) p 405. Wilhelm Geerlings, Traditio Apostólica Apostolische Überlieferung, Fontes Christian], vol. 1 ( Herder, Freiburg,1989) pp 170-171. Bradshaw, 'Ordination' in Geoffrey C u m i n g (ed.), Essays on Hippolytus (Grove Liturgical Study 15, Bramcote, 1978), p 3 3 . 'Confessor aittein, si fait in vinailis propter iwmen doniini, non imponelnr manus super cum ad diaconatuni i>cl presbytcratuni. Habet enitn honorem presbyteralus per suatn eonfessionem. Si aulem inslituitur episcopus, imponetur ei manus.' (Botte, Tradition, IX, p 28; after the Sahidic, Arabic, and Hthiopic versions) Eusebius records that as the R o m a n church was preparing to elect a new bishop, a dove landed upon the head of Fabian, who had recently arrived from the country. As this w a s understood to be a sign from G o d , Fabian w a s forthwith elected bishop of R o m e (Eusebius, History, VI.29, GCS 2.2, pp 582, 584). Bradshaw, 'Ordination' p 38. Cf. Paul Bradshaw, Ordination Riles o) ¡he Ancient Churches of East and West (Pueblo, N e w York, 1990), p 73. '. . ¡Ilumina, Domine, quem dilexisli et elegisti ad ministrandum ecclcsiae tuac, offerendumque in sanclitatc sanctuario tuo, quae tibi offerunlur ab haereditate principatus saccrdotii lili, til ministerio fungens sine reprehensione el pure el sánete el mente candida, digitus fiat ordine hoc magno el excelso per voluulalem tuam el te laudet indesinenter per ¡'ilium luum . (I. E. Rahmani (ed), testamentum Domini Nostri jesu Christi XXXVI11 (Georg Olms, 1 lildesceim, 1968) p 93.

13

S E Q U E N T I A L OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

be no movement to a higher order.'63 Accordingly, a ' . . . bishop cannot be taken from among the deacons or the presbyters; he must be taken from the laos or pleithos.,(A If the Apostolic Tradition represents not early-third century, but mid-secondcentury practice, then Bradshaw's and Ratcliff's point is well taken. If, however, the AT simply reflects late-second-century/early-third-century practice, then thentheory needs to be reassessed, since from the late second and early third centuries deacons were candidates for the episcopate in the church of Rome. For instance, Eleutherus (175-189) and possibly Callistus (217-222) were deacons prior to their appointments to the episcopate. In addition, sequential movement from the presbyterate to the episcopate was known in the West in the late second century; Irenaeus was a presbyter before being made a bishop in the church of Lyons. In Rome itself presbyters were episcopal candidates in the third century. One such example is Hippolytus the presbyter of Rome, one of the possible authors of the AT, who became a schismatic bishop in Rome after the election of Callistus in 217. While there was clearly movement from one order to another in the West and in Rome in the early third century, such movement, however, was neither prescribed nor implied within the ordination ri tes of the Apostolic Tradition. By the mid-third century, there is unequivocal evidence of sequential appointment from one ministry to another—or to others; the principal witness to this phenomenon is Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). In Epistle 38, written ca. 250, Cyprian writes to the clergy and people of Carthage to explain why he ordained a young man, Aurelius, a confessor, to the lectorate without having consulted them: the explanation is that although he is younger in years, he is senior in honour.65 In the first section Cyprian alludes to what would have been the usual way of selecting candidates for ecclesiastical ministry: the bishop consults the presbyters, deacons, and people about the morals and merits of a candidate. This consultation would have provided the means for testing a candidate. In the case of the young confessor Aurelius, however, the candidate was considered to have already been tested by God. In the second section, Cyprian explains that although Aurelius is worthy of the 'higher grades' he will 'begin' at the lectorate. Clearly Cyprian intends to promote Aurelius to the 'higher ranks' at a later date. Here one ministry is clearly being used as a preparatory and probationary stage before promotion to another. There is, however, no indication of any theological or canonical reason for Cyprian's course of action, which appears to be no more than an act of political expediency. A more significant text from the letters of Cyprian relating to sequential ordination is Epistle 55.8 to Antonianus. Cyprian describes the ecclesiastical career

63 64 65

E. C. Ratcliff, ' "Apostolic Tradition": Questions Concerning the Appointment of the B i s h o p ' in A. H. Couratin & D. H. Tripp (eds), Liturgical Studies (SPCK, London, 1976) p 159. Ratcliff, 'Apostolic Tradition', p 159 Cyprian, Epistle 38.1-2, Cyprianus presbyteris et diaconibus item plebi univenae s., CSEL 3.2, p p 579-580; trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, Miuistn/._Mcssage of the Fathers of the Church, vol. 8, gen. ed. T h o m a s hlalton (Michael Glazier, Inc., W i l m i n g t o n , Delaware, 1984) pp 132-133.

14

THE

PRE-N1CENE

PERIOD

of Cornelius, bishop of Rome (251-253). 66 Cyprian declares that Cornelius was not made a bishop suddenly, but 'was promoted through all the ecclesiastical offices'; he 'ascended through all the grades of religion to the exalted pinnacle of the priesthood.' 67 Commentators regard Cyprian's letter to Antonianus as evidence of the existence of the cursus honorum in the third century. In his commentary on the epistles of Cyprian, G. W. Clarke states that Epistle 55.8 is a remarkable testimony to the extent to which the clerical cursus was established in the mid-third century.68 Certainly in the case of Cornelius, who had 'advanced through all the ecclesiastical offices', what emerges later as clerical cursus is at least embryonic. Clearly, particular ministries were no longer exclusively life-long vocations; individuals could and did 'advance' from one grade of ministry to another. Yet, in the mid-third century it was probably Cornelius' career which was the exception. There is nothing to suggest that Cyprian understood the example of Cornelius as normative or prescriptive. Nor does Cyprian attach any sacramental significance to sequential movement through 'all the ecclesiastical offices'. Again, commenting on Epistle 55.8 regarding the clerical career of Cornelius, G. W. Clarke notes that 'Cyprian himself would have been poorly qualified for office on the criterion he provides in Cornelius' eulogy . . . ,'69 Unlike his contemporary, Cornelius of Rome, it is doubtful whether Cyprian had served in any ecclesiastical office other than possibly the presbyterate for a short while after baptism, prior to his election and ordination as bishop of Carthage (c. 248). Evidence that Cyprian served in any other order, such as the diaconate, before he was a presbyter or bishop simply does not exist. His own ecclesiastical career, then, corresponds neither to that of Cornelius of Rome, nor to the later cursus honorum of the church. Together, Epistle 38 and Epistle 55.8 indicate that by the mid-third century, at least in Rome and North Africa, one ministry could be—and was—used as a preparatory stage prior to promotion to another. Moreover, an individual might well serve sequentially in 'all the ecclesiastical offices'. While sequential ordination was neither a sacramental priority nor a canonical necessity, it did without doubt occur in the pre-Nicene church, concurrent with the practice of direct ordination. As Dom Gregory Dix succinctly stated over half a century ago: 'If a man were chosen to be bishop, then he was ordained bishop, regardless if he were already an acolyte or a presbyter or a simple layman; if a deacon

66

67 68 69

'Venio iain nunc, frater carissime, ad personam Cornell collegae nostri.... nam quod Cornelium carissimum nostrum Deo el Christo et eeclesiae eins, item consacerdotibus cunctis ¡audabili praedicatione commendal, non iste ad episcopalian subito pervenit, sed per omnia ecclesiastica officio promotus el in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepe promeritus ad sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit.' (Cyprian, Epistle 55.8, Cyprianum Anloniano fratri s., CSLL 3.2, 629; trans. Lienhard, Ministry, 134) At this time 'priesthood' (sacerdos) refers to the episcopate rather than to the presbyterate. G. W. Clarke (trans. & comm.), The Leiters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vol. 3 Ancient Christian Writers 46 ( N e w m a n Press, N e w York, 1986) p 173. Clarke, Leiters of Cyprian, vol. 3, p 173.

15

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

were elected then he was ordained bishop without first being ordained presbyter, and so on.'70 The pre-Nicene period reflects instances of deacons becoming bishops, members of the laity becoming bishops, members of the laity becoming presbyters, and presbyters becoming bishops. The sequence which is bypassed, and for which there is very little evidence, is sequential ordination from the diaconate to the presbyterate. The scarcity of evidence for this particular sequence is noteworthy, since it is sequential ordination from the diaconate to the presbyterate which has been so important for the contemporary question.

70

Gregory Dix, T h e Ministry of the Early Church c. A.D. 90-410' in K e n n e l h E. Kirk (ed), The Ministry (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1946) p 284.

16

Apostolic

2

The Post-Nicene Period After the Peace of the Church, local churches were no longer closely-knit communities in which vocation to leadership was easily discernible. The earlier, more flexible and diverse means of appointing the higher clergy was frequently abused by the unscrupulous, the ambitious, and the unworthy. As patristic ecclesiastical histories such as the Historia francorum of Gregory of Tours report, unsuitable candidates for the episcopate were frequently motivated by greed and ambition to seek office. Likewise, simony, the purchase of ecclesiastical office, had become a growing threat to the church. Civil appointment, ambition, and simony (referred to by Gregory the Great as 'that terrible disease') were all too often accompanied by, and associated with, per saltum or direct ordination. The seriousness of the problem of ordaining the 'unworthy' to the episcopate is reflected in papal letters. For example, Pope Celestine (422-432) complained that known criminals were made bishops. 71 In the letter to the bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis, Leo the Great (44CM61) protested that those ignorant of the church's lawful institutions, lacking in all humility, inexperienced and unskilled were likewise made bishops.72 Gregory the Great (590-604) commented that the 'illicit promotion of the few' is becoming the rain of many, through the lack of respect for the governance of the church.73 Hence, patristic conciliar and papal texts frequently speak of the need for probatio—the testing of orthodox faith and morals. There were no general ordination examinations or ecclesiastical selection committees in the patristic church. The requirement for probation was provided for by the cursus honorum, a long tradition in the Roman military and civil services, indicating sequential promotion through grades according to designated times to be served in each office, known as the interstices. One of the original functions of the ecclesiastical cursus was to test the holiness and worthiness of clergy for periods of years in the lower offices. This procedure was an attempt to ensure that those unworthy of the 'dignity' of the episcopate or the presbyterate would not find themselves in these offices. Episcopal candidates without adequate preparation also proved to be a serious problem for the church. Not surprisingly, the patristic texts also speak of progression through the grades in terms of praeparatio—training and education; of becoming a disciple before becoming the teacher. Bishops who were unprepared for the tasks of episcopal leadership—theology, liturgy, diplomacy, canon law, and administration—were almost as undesirable and unsuitable as candidates who had never been tested .Since there were no semi naries or schools of theology in the early church, this need for preparation was likewise met by sequential ordination and the interstices, namely the cursus honorum. 71 72 73

Epistle 4.4, PL 56. p 578. Epistle 12.4, PL 54. pp 649-651. Reg. 9.213, M G H Epp. 2, pp 198-199.

17

SEQUENTIAL

OR

DIRECT

ORDINATION?

The abundant condemnations of the ordinations of the unworthy and untrained in conciliar statements, papal letters and decretals, as well as the patristic ecclesiastical histories, indicate that in the new situation of the fourth and fifth centuries, the church needed an effective means to select, prepare, and test its leaders. Sequential ordination was the method that emerged as the practical and pastoral solution to the problem of appointing the unworthy and the incapable to ecclesiastical leadership in the recently Christianized Roman Empire and the Frankish kingdom. Not only was it a practical means, but a proven one as well, within the socio-political culture of the Roman Empire, which had successfully applied the cursus honorum for centuries. From the mid-fourth century, the practice of sequential ordination emerged as the preferred and canonical way of training and selecting members of the clergy. The earliest canonical requirement of sequential ordination extant is Canon XIII of the Council of Sardica, 343, which directed that candidates for the episcopate must first have served sequentially in the offices of lector, deacon, and presbyter.74 Subsequently, conciliar and papal statements repeatedly called for sequential ordination with specific intervals of time—the interstices—between ordination to one office and advancement to the next. An idea of the seriousness with which the patristic church understood the place of the interstices in connection with sequential ordination is found in a decretal of Pope Siricius (384—399) to Bishop Himerius of Tarragona (Epistle 1; 10 February 385). Evidently, Himerius, bishop of Tarragona, a city in Spain, had requested of Siricius answers to various questions about church life, including the ordered ministry. This decretal of Siricius contains directives about clerical celibacy, the ordination of monks, as well as the clerical interstices and the cursus honorum: This text is an important piece of evidence regarding the status of the cursus honorum and the interstices at the end of the fourth century in the Western church. The terminology used by Siricius is noteworthy; for instance, the use of the term gradus. This decretal is one of the earliest examples of the language of per saltum. Later, direct ordination to one of the higher offices without the intervening orders would be referred to as '"per saltum" ordination', "by a leap'. The tenor of Siricius' decretal makes it clear that his answers are not pastoral responses to a particular situation, but authoritative legislation directed to a broad constituency. Siricius directs that boys who have been dedicated to the ministry of the church ought to be baptized before they reach puberty and admitted to the lectorate. If a boy has lived 'honourably' from adolescence to the thirtieth (or 74

'Ossius episcopus dixit: El hoc necessarium arbilror ui diligentissime tracletis: si forte nut dives, aul scolasticus dc foro, aut cx administralore, episcopus postulatus fuerit, non prius ordinetur nisi ante et lectoris inunere et officio diacor.ii et ministcrio praesbyterii fuerit perfunctus; lit per singutos gradus (si dignus fuerit) ascendat ad cultnen cpiscopatus. Potest enim per has proniotiones, quae habebunt utique prolixuni tempus, probari qua fide sit, qua modestia, qua gravitate et ivrecundia: et si dignus fuerit pmbatus, divino sacerdotio inlustretur. Nec coiweniens est nee rationis disciptina patitur ut teniere aut leviter ordinetur aut episcopus aut praesbyter aut diaconus — uiaxiine qui sit neofitus, cum beatissimus apostolus niagister gentium ne hoc fieret denuntiasse et prohibuisse videatur; quia longi teniporis examinalio merita eius probabil. Universi dixerunt placere sibi haec.' (C. H. Turner (ed), Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monunienta Juris Antiquisshna (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1899) vol. 1, pp 472-474.

18

THE

POST-MICH MI

PERIOD

twentieth) year, and has later married within the discipline of the church, he may be admitted as an acolyte and as a subdeacon. If he is able to live continently, he then may be advanced to the diaconate. After five years as a deacon, if he will 'have served well', he may be ordained to the presbyterate. After ten years as a presbyter, if the integrity of his life and faith are proven, he may 'attain the episcopal chair'. 75 Later, the decretal deals with the ordination of older men. When an older man is baptized and is eager to advance to the 'sacred service', if he lives within the marriage discipline of the church, he is to be admitted immediately to the office of lector or (aut) exorcist. After an interval of two years, such an older man will serve as 'an acolyte and subdeacon' for a period of five years. If he is judged worthy throughout this time, he is to be made a deacon. Thereupon, he is as likely to be ordained a presbyter or bishop as any other cleric.76 Siricius also deals with the question of the ordination of monks. He directs that monks who are less than thirty years old be advanced through the minor orders, through the appointed times, until they reach the diaconate and the presbyterate. Siricius directs that monks not ascend to the 'height of the episcopate' in a 'leap'—nee saltus—but in their case also the same times for each rank shall be observed. 77 The sequence of cursus as outlined by Siricius is as follows: lector/exorcist, acolyte/subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, and bishop. Except for the omission of the doorkeeper, these are the same grades as outlined by Cornelius in Rome a century and a half earlier. Siricius couples the orders of lector and exorcist, and acolyte and subdeacon. And yet it is not clear from the text whether one receives both orders within the coupling, or only one. The intervals, or interstices, reflected in the decretal are: the lectorate (and the office of exorcist for older men) until thirty years of age (or for a period of two years for older men), the offices of acolyte and subdeacon for five years (explicitly for older men), the diaconate for five years, the presbyterate for ten years, then the episcopate. No one, not even a monk, is to be ordained to the episcopate by a leap. With regards to the cursus honorum and the interstices, Siricius' underlying considerations are testing and worthiness. Promotion from one office to the next is understood as conditional.78 Nevertheless, the cursus honorum in the fourth a nd fifth centuries was still in the early stages of a long process of evolution. Although enjoined by conciliar and papal legislation, and transmitted through the patristic canonistic collections 79 , the practice of sequential ordination was neither uniform nor universal. Thus in reality, candidates for the episcopate continued to be selected 75 76 77 78

PL 13.1142-43. PL 13.1143. PL 13.1144-1145. 'Ai probabilityvixerit inlegritas viiae ac fidei

79

S u c h a s t h e m i d - s i x t h - c e n t u r y N o r t h A f r i c a n Brevatio s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y G a l l i c a n Colleclio ivluf gailica.

.. s; ultra quinquc i•jus fuerit npprobata

annos laudabililer minstrarit . . ' (PL 13.1142-1143).

19

canonum

si tamcn

a n d Concordia

per haec

canoiuim

tempora

and the early

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

from diverse states: neophytes, lay people, those in minor orders, deacons, and presbyters. By way of illustration, in Milan, Ambrose was ordained directly to the episcopate as a neophyte in 374.80 The best known Eastern example is Nectarius of Constantinople, who was similarly ordained to the episcopate during the Second Council of Constantinople in 381.81 In North Africa, Augustine was ordained directly to the presbyterate as a lay person in 391, four years after his baptism.82 Gregory ofTours indicates in the Historiafrancorum that there was little uniformity with respect to sequential ordination in the Frankish church. The Liber pontificalis and other sources relate that throughout the late patristic period many bishops of Rome continued to be drawn from the diaconate without prior ordination as presbyters. 83 There is one instance in which a subdeacon was elected and ordained bishop in Rome.84 Although Canon XIII of the Council of Sardica mentions the diaconate and the presbyterate as requisite for promotion to the episcopate, Western patristic canonistic collections, such as the Roman Collectio Dionysiana and the North African Concordia canonum, modified Canon XIII to reflect the practice of ordaining deacons or presbyters to the episcopate. 85 This significant modification of the Sardican Canon XIII survived in the major Western canonistic collections well into the twelfth century.86 Although the list of per saltum ordinations noted is not exhaustive, it demonstrates that it was still possible in the late patristic period for lay people to be ordained directly to the presbyterate and the episcopate, for deacons to become bishops, and in at least one instance, for a subdeacon to become a bishop. In

80

81 82 83

84

85

86

W h i l e unanimous agreement does not exist on this point, the tide of recent scholarly opinion leans towards the position that Ambrose received no other ordination than that to the episcopate. E.g., P.H. Lafontaine, Les conditions positives de l'accession aux ordres dans la première legislation ecclésiastique (300-492) (diss, of Univ of O t t a w a , 1963 in Editions de l'Université d'Ottawa, 1963) p 246. Balthasar Fischer, 'Hat Ambrosius v o n Mailand in der Woche zwischen seiner Taufe und seiner Bischofskonsekration andere Weihe empfangen?,' in P Granfield and J . A . J u n g m a n n (eds) Kyriakon, vol. 2 [Festschrift J o h n a n n e s Quasten] (Verlag Aschendorff, Munster, 1970) pp 527-531. A. Faivre, Naisssance d'une hiérarchie: Les premières étapes du cursus clerical, Théologie Historique 40 (Editions Beauchesne, Paris, 1977) pp 408-409. 'Ambrose' in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1978) pp 42-43. Louis J. Swift, 'Ambrose' in Everett Ferguson (ed), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Garland Press Inc., N e w York, 1991) p 30. Cf. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, V1I.8, PG 67. pp 1433,1436; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, V.8, PG 67. p 577. Cf. Augustine, Sermo 355.2, PL 39. p 1569; Possidius, Vita Sancti Augustani episcopi, IV, PL pp 32.37. E.g., Liberius (353-366), D a m a s u s (366-384), Siricius (384-399), Celestine (422-427), Leo the Great (440-468), Hilarus (461-468), Felix III (483-492), Anastasius II (496-498), S y m m a c h u s (498-514), Hormisdas (514-523), Boniface II (530-532), Vigilius (537-555), Pelagius (556-561), Gregory the Great (590-604), Sabinian (604-606), J o h n IV (640-642), John V (685-686). Silverus (536-537) w a s apparently a subdeacon w h e n elected and consecrated bishop of R o m e in 536. This choice was largely instigated by Theodahad, the Ostrogothic king of Italy. Liberatus the Deacon, Breviarium in Causae Neslorianorum et Eulychianorum 22, PL 68.1039. Cf. C a n o n XIII of the Council of Sardica directs that candidates for the episcopate must have fulfilled the: ' . . . .lectoris mutiere et officiodiaconii et praesbyterii fuerit perfunctus... .' (Turner, E O M I A 1,472-474). Cf. the Concordia canonum: '... .lectoris munere et officii diaconii aut_presln/terii fuerit perfunctus . . . .' (PL 88.839). E.g. Burchard of Worms, Decretorum Libri XX, cap. 17, PL 140.554; Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, cap. 71, PL 161.350; Gratian, Decretum, D. 61, c. 10, Aemilius Friedberg, ed., Decretum Magistri Gratiani (Liepzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879) 230-231.

20

THE P 0 S T - N 1 C E N E

PERIOD

light of the repeated censures against the ordination of neophytes and lay people in the patristic period, it is clear that the older practice of direct ordination persisted, and that the legislation which enjoined the cursus and the interstices was frequently neglected. Throughout the patristic period sequential ordination with the interstices, as enjoined in conciliar and papal legislation, was the ideal rather than the actual practice. As Paul Bradshaw has observed: 'Legislation is better evidence for what it seeks to prohibit than for what it seeks to promote.' 87 Direct ordination continued on unscrupulous grounds, such as episcopal ambition, civil appointment, or simony. In other instances, the older practice persisted on more pastoral grounds, such as the shortage of clergy or the need to assert orthodox leadership. During the Decian persecution, for instance, the clerical ranks were seriously depleted; likewise, the barbarian invasions decreased the numbers of clergy. Due to the scarcity of catholic clergy in some places, such as at Milan at the time of Ambrose's election, it was necessary to choose episcopal candidates even from the catechumenate. Finally, as Paul-Henri Lafontaine has remarked on this phenomenon in his magnificent treatment of the question in Les conditions positives de Vaccession aux ordres dans la première legislation ecclésiastique, one cannot discount the operation of the Holy Spirit.88 In the patristic period, sequential ordination unequivocally met a pastoral rather than a theological or sacramental concern. For all that popes and councils may have denounced the practice of ordaining neophytes and lay people directly to the episcopate, they nonetheless regarded those who had been ordained per saltum as real bishops. The scandal of per salt urn ordination revolved not around questions of theology of order, but around the calibre of the candidate. Bishops who had been promoted without the requisite cursus were often suspect because they were ill-prepared, unsuited, and ineffective, not because something was found wanting in their ordinations. Within a few centuries of the first conciliar and papal legislation prescribing sequential ordination and the interstices, however, it is clear that the process and its two-fold purpose, preparation and probation, had begun to break down. This dissolution is associated with the modification and neglect of the interstices canons. It has been noted that the observance of the cursus and the interstices established by Siricius would have taken twenty-nine years to complete for adult candidates; those who began as boys would be at least forty-five years old at the time of ordination to the episcopate. These lengths of time (the tempora constituía or the praefixa tempora) would have provided adequate opportunity for the probation and preparation of candidates for the major orders. As long as the cursus honorum was combined with the observance of the lengthy interstices, it ensured both probation and preparation. This purpose could not adequately be served once the interstices became modified and eventually curtailed. In a letter of Pope Innocent to Felix of Nocera (Epistle 7), one observes 87 88

Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Lafontaine, Les Conditions, pp 263-267.

Worship (OUP, N e w York, 1992) pp 68-70.

21

S E Q U E N T I A L

OR

DIRECT

O R D I N A T I O N ?

the appearance of this phenomenon in the early fifth century, although Innocent denounces it.89 Leo the Great complained about shortened interstices in the midfifth century (Epistle 6).90 Yet, by the pontificate of Gelasius towards the end of the fifth century, it had become licit to ordain members of the laity through all the clerical grades from lector to presbyter in a year (Epistle 14.2).91 The letter of Pope Pelagius to Sapaudus of Aries (Epistle 5) reflects the fact that rapid series of ordinations through the sequence of the cursus honorum—in a single day—had become something of a problem by the mid-sixth century.92 In these instances where the two-fold process of the cursus honorum was violated, it was the interstices rather than sequential ordination which was abandoned. Once the interstices could be so severely curtailed, sequential ordination itself began to be understood as a pro forma convention rather than a viable means of selection and training. While the conferral of a rapid series of ordinations on a single candidate stood in marked contrast to earlier papal and conciliar legislation, the practice indicates a shift in the understanding and use of the cursus honorum. Such a rapid series of ordinations, within either a full year or a full day, could hardly have met the expressed need for preparation and probation envisaged by the early legislators of the clerical cursus and the interstices canons.

89 90 91 92

PL 20.604-605. PL 34.620. PL 84.798-799. M G H Cpistolae vol. 3, Memwingici

& Kawlini,

vol. 1 ( W e i d m a n n , Berlin, 1 8 9 2 ) p p 4 4 4 - 4 4 5 .

22

3

The Medieval Period The medieval period saw the harmonization of the exercise of sequential ordination, as well as an emerging new rationale. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the sequences in which the minor orders were conferred varied between liturgical traditions: Frankish, Hispanic-Irish, and Roman. These variations disappeared in the tenth century through the emergence and adoption of the Pontificale romanogermanicum throughout the Western church, with its particular sequence of grades: [psalmist], doorkeeper, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, and bishop. This specific sequence—the so-called Romano-Gallican sequence— survived in the Church of England until 1550 and in the Roman Catholic Church until 1972. Throughout the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, a degree of flexibility persisted concerning election and consecration to the episcopate. The practice of ordaining deacons directly to the episcopate in the Frankish church seems to have ended by the late ninth century, certainly by the time of Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims (845-882). For example, in Epistle 29 to Adventius of Metz, Hincmar states that bishops may be chosen from among the deacons, but such candidates must first be ordained presbyters.93 While an insistence that bishops first be presbyters conforms to the Sardican Canon XIII listing the presbyterate as a grade leading to the episcopate, at the same time it marks a shift away from the inherited Western pattern in which the presbyterate was often omitted. The Frankish insistence on prior presbyteral ordination seems to have arisen out of theological and liturgical considerations. For example, Amalarius of Metz (c. 780-c. 850) writes in the Liber officialis that a bishop received the power to offer the eucharistic sacrifice when his hands were anointed at his ordination to the presbyterate.94 By contrast, in Rome the practice of electing and ordaining deacons directly to the episcopate continued well into the tenth century. The long-standing practice of ordaining bishops from among either the deacons or presbyters of Rome is reflected in the papal biographies in the Liber pontificalis,95 the early medieval canonistic collections which retain the Dionysian version of Canon XIII of the Council of Sardica,96 and in the liturgical rites. An important witness to Roman practice is Ordo Romanus (OR) XXXIV, an ordination rite from the mid-eighth century,97 the oldest extant description of Roman ordination practice since the Apostolic Tradition. OR XXXIV is largely a series of rubrical directions, but also 93 94 95

96 97

PL 126.186. cap. 14, De pontificiJ. Hanssens, ed., Liber officialis, Anmlarii episcopi Opera liturgica omnia, vol. 2, Studi e Testi, vol. 139 (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1984) p 233. E.g., Gregory II (715-731), Zacharias (741-752), Stephen II (752-757), Paul I (757-767), Constantine II (antipope, 767-769), Hadrian I (772-795), Stephen IV (816-817), Valentine (827), Nicholas I (858-867), Benedict V (964-966), Benedict VI (973-974), Boniface Vili (antipope, 974, 984-985). E.g. the Carolingian canon law collection k n o w n as the Colleclio Dacheriana. J. L. D ' A c h e r y (ed), Spicilegium siiv Colleclio Veterum Aliquot Scriplorum I (Paris, 1793) p 561. Michel Andrieu (ed), Les Ordines Romani du haul Moyen Age, vol. 3, (Spicilegium S a c r u m Lovaniense, Louvain, 1951) pp 603-613.

23

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

contains some prayers. The rite of episcopal ordination contains a complete text for the presentation and examination of the candidate. Germane to this discussion on sequential ordination is the provision in the episcopal ordination rite for candidates who may be either deacons or presbyters. At the presentation of the candidate (OR XXXIX.22) the pope asks what office the candidate fulfils, deacon or presbyter, and for how long.98 The pope asks the same question of the candidate in the examination (OR XXXIV.27).99 Later, when the pope invites the assembly to pray for the one to be consecrated bishop, he refers to him by name as a deacon or presbyter (OR XXXIV.38).100 Furthermore, the rite itself is identical for both diaconal and presbyteral candidates for the episcopate. An important tenth-century ordination rite is found in Ordo Romanus XXXV.101 The text is largely based on OR XXXIV but contains many more Frankish elements, making it a Romano-Gallican rite. Andrieu notes that its archetype must have been redacted in Rome during the first quarter of the tenth century.102 Vogel concurs with Andrieu, since the archetype was used by the mid-tenth-century compilers of the Romano-Germanic Pontifical. 103 Like OR XXXIV, OR XXXV assumes that candidates for the episcopate will be either deacons or presbyters. At the presentation, the pope asks what office the candidate currently fulfils, deacon or presbyter, and for how long.1''1 The same questions are again asked of the candidate at the examination.105 There is one major development in the way that deacons and presbyters are consecrated bishops from OR XXXIV to OR XXXV. Earlier, the presbyteral ordination rite OR XXXV contains an anointing of the hands. The rite also enjoins the anointing the hands of the new bishop, if the bishop has not previously had his hands consecrated.106 Although the formula is not provided, it must have been identical to the one used in the ordination of a presbyter conferring the sacerdotal and liturgical graces. Presumably if a presbyter was ordained to the episcopate according to the rite of OR XXXV, his hands would not have been anointed, since such an anointing would have taken place at his ordination to the presbyterate. On the other hand, if the episcopal candidate was a deacon, then his hands would have been anointed for the first and only time. In 'La carrière ecclésiastique des papes', Andrieu asserted that the anointing rubric applies only to deacons; there is no mention of presbyters who had not been anointed.107 Andrieu later speculated, however, that this direction could equally apply to presbyters ordained under a rite such as OR XXXIV who, like deacons, 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Andrieu, Les Ordina Romani 3, p 608. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 3, p 610. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 3, p 612. M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age vol. 4 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Louvain, 1956) pp 33-46. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 4, p 3. Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources (Pastoral Press, Washington, 1986), p 176. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 4, p 41. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 4, p 42. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani 4, p 45. Michel Andrieu, 'La carrière ecclésiastique des papes et les documents liturgiques du môven age' in Revue des Sciences religieuses 21 (1947) p 103.

24

THE MEDIEVAL

PERIOD

would never have had their hands anointed.108 Given the certainty that deacons are still envisaged as candidates for episcopal consecration in OR XXXV, they likely remain the primary object of this rubric. Although the Western church in the early medieval period knew both the practice of ordaining deacons per saltum to the episcopate, as well as insistence on anterior presbyteral ordination, it is not clear whether the same degree of flexibility existed with regard to sequential ordination from the diaconate to the presbyterate. While the liturgical rites suggest that normally presbyters would have been deacons, biographical and historical evidence, especially from the Liber pontificalis, suggests that there were bishops who had been presbyters, but never deacons.109 From the Liber pontificalis it would appear that in the ninth and tenth centuries, more presbyters than deacons were ordained in the Roman church; such presbyters had likely never been deacons. For instance, Leo III (795816) ordained thirty presbyters and twelve deacons. 110 Sergius II (844-847) ordained eight presbyters and three deacons. 1 " Leo IV (847-855) ordained nineteen presbyters and eight deacons." 2 Benedict III (855-858) ordained six presbyters and one deacon.113 Nicholas I (858-867) ordained seven presbyters and four deacons. 114 John XII (955-964) ordained seven presbyters and two deacons." 5 Throughout the ninth century, at least, more presbyters were ordained in Rome than deacons, implying that not all presbyters passed through the diaconate. The wide distribution of the Pontificate romano-germanicum from the mid-tenth century settled the hierarchical sequence of the minor orders in the Western church. Yet the exact sequence of major orders was not settled until the eleventh century, with the universal emergence of an insistence on sequential ordination from the presbyterate to the episcopate. The presbyteral ordination of the deacon Hildebrand in 1073 prior to his episcopal consecration as Gregory VII is the pivotal indication that the Frankish sequence and practice had become universal in the Western church. The eleventh-century reform movements insisted on sequential ordination through all the grades in what must have been a situation of considerable laxity. For instance, it appears that in some places reception of the minor orders, especially the subdiaconate, had fallen into desuetude. Hence, both councils and popes insisted that no higher grade be received without the previous reception of the lower. Accordingly, legislation from the pontificate of Alexander II (1061-331073) directed that without reception of the subdiaconate, presbyters and deacons were inhibited from the exercise of their offices until they had 108 Andrieu, Les Ordines Rotiiani 4, p 20. 109 E.g., Paschal I (817-824), Gregory IV (827-844), Leo IV (847-855), Benedict III (855-858), Hadrian II (867-872), Stephen V (885-891). ' 110 LP II, 34. I I I LP II, 101. 112 LP II, 134. 113 LP II, 148. 114 LP II, 167. 115 LP II, 246.

25

SEQUENTIAL

OR

DIRECT

ORDINATION?

received it. Eleventh-century canonical legislation demanding sequential ordination with an adequate observance of the interstices was also part of the church's effort to stem the crime of simony: the purchase of the higher ecclesiastical offices would have been rendered pointless by the insistence on long periods of canonical probation and preparation through the grades! The eleventh century is noted for the resurgence of what Roger Reynolds has termed 'patristic presbyterian' theories of episcopacy.116 Medieval commentators on sacred orders argued that in the celebration of the eucharist there is a basic equality between bishops and presbyters. Moreover, they argue, it is the presbyter who is primarily the sacerdos; episcopal office being only derivatively sacerdotal. The scholastic theologians also commented on the question of sequential ordination, particularly from the presbyterate to the episcopate. For example, in the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae (c. 1272), Question 35, article 5, Thomas Aquinas asks 'whether the character of one order necessarily presupposes the character of another order?' He answers that it is not necessary for the major orders to receive the minor, since their respective powers are distinct. Noting that in the early church there were some who were ordained presbyters without having received the lower orders, he adds: 'it was decided by the legislation of the church' that candidates for the higher orders must first have humbled themselves in the lower. And so those who are ordained without the lower orders are not re-ordained, but receive what was lacking through subsequent ordination to the lower orders. Thus, according to Aquinas one could validly, though illicitly, be ordained a presbyter without having been ordained a deacon.117 On the other hand, Aquinas teaches that there is a theological imperative regarding sequential ordination from the presbyterate to the episcopate. For Aquinas there are only three sacred orders: the 'priesthood', the diaconate, and the subdiaconate.118 In Question 40 of the Supplement, where he asks whether the episcopate is an order, Aquinas restates the conviction that one order does not depend on a preceding order in terms of validity. With regard to the episcopate, however, he states that 'episcopal power depends on the priestly power since no one can be a bishop who has not received priestly power.'119 For Aquinas the sacrament of order is related primarily to the eucharist.120 The presbyterate is the summit of the orders since it is directed to the consecration of the eucharist.121 Because the episcopate is not directed to the eucharist, he argued, it is not an order. Consequently, episcopal consecration depends on ordination to the presbyterate; without prior ordination as a presbyter a bishop would have jurisdiction, but not order.

116 R.E. Reynolds, 'Patristic "Presbyterianism" in the Early Medieval Theology of Sacred Orders' in Mediaeval Studies 45 (1983) pp 328 ff. 117 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pars Illa et Supplementum, De Rubeis, Billuart, and P. Eaucher, (eds) (Marietti, Rome, 1953) p 758. 118 Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 37, art. 3, p 766 119 Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 40, art. 5, p 780. 120 Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 37, art. 2, p 765. 121 Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 37, art. 5.

26

THE

POST-MICENE

PERIOD

The same teaching is held by other scholastic theologians.122 For example, Richard Fishacre in the Commeniarium in libros sententiarum (c. 1241-1245) admits that although one may be validly ordained to the presbyterate without prior ordination to the diaconate, one must be ordained a presbyter prior to ordination to the episcopate. Without prior ordination as a presbyter, a bishop is not a bishop. A new order is not conferred in episcopal consecration, but a new office with new power.123 Although from the eleventh century deacons continued to be elected bishops, they were required to be ordained presbyters prior to episcopal ordination, often within a matter of days.124 Sequential ordination from the presbyterate to the episcopate had become a theological and sacramental concern, as well as a matter of canon. From the eleventh century both theologians and canonists were insistent that bishops must have been ordained as presbyters. However, by their retention of the Dionysian version of Canon XIII of the Council of Sardica, the canonists, at least, were aware that bishops were once ordained from either the diaconate or the presbyterate.125 Although the scholastic theologians maintained that sequential ordination from the minor orders to the presbyterate was largely a canonical requirement, theological opinion, combined with canonical and liturgical practice, held ordination to the episcopate impossible without prior ordination to the presbyterate. Since prior to the eleventh century deacons (and others) could validly be ordained to the episcopate, it is difficult to define this theological position as either definitive or universal. Nonetheless, it is just as difficult to deny that for centuries, much of Western catholic tradition has held that direct ordination to the episcopate has is not only been irregular, but also invalid. As Paul Bradshaw has remarked, the medieval assumption that episcopal consecration depends on prior presby teral ordination is an example of theologians making theological statements based on contemporary practice rather than on the tradition: 'The medieval theologians did not have the advantage of knowing the history of the Christian ministry or of the rites of ordination which they found in the Pontificals. They were therefore compelled to make their theological statements simply on abstract principles and on current usage.' 126

122 Cf. Augustine McDevitt, 'The Episcopate as an Order and Sacrament on the Eve of the High Scholastic Period' in Franciscan Studia 20 (1960) pp 96-127. 123 Richard Fishacre, Commeniarium, in McDevitt, 'The Episcopate as an O r d e r ' p 124, n. 95. 124 E.g., in Rome: Gregory VII, 1073; Gelasius II, 1118; Innocent II, 1130; Celestine III, 1191; Innocent III, 1(98. Elsewhere: Peter of Anicium, 1053; Alfanus of Salerno, 1058; Thomas Becket, 1162. 125 E.g. Burchard of Worms, Decretorum libri XX, cap. 17, PL 140.554; Ivo of Charlres, Decretimi, cap. 71, PL 161.350; Gratian, Decretimi, D. 61, c. 10, Aemilius Friedberg, ed., Decretimi Magislri Gratiani ( Bernhard Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1879) pp 230-231. 126 Paul F. Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal (SPCK, London, 1971) p 6.

27

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

In continuity with late patristic practice, the medieval period witnessed to an increasing distance between sequential ordination and the interstices. If a lay man was elected to the episcopate, it was the interstices rather than the sequence of grades which would have been omitted in his ordination. The election and ordination of members of the laity to the episcopate continued to be considered an abuse throughout the medieval period. Yet it is interesting to note that such ordinations were not strictly speaking per salium in nature, since they included the sequence of the prescribed grades. Once the canons regarding the interstices were so easily overlooked, the pastoral rationale for sequential ordination, namely, preparation and probation, was likewise forgotten. Significantly, during the Gregorian reforms of the late eleventh century, many of the patristic canons concerning sequential ordination and the interstices were reiterated by popes, councils, and canonists. The reintroduction of these texts belonged to the arsenal in the attack upon simony, which would have been made redundant by the regular observance of the canonical cursus honorum according to the prescribed intervals.

28

4

The Reformation The reformed Church of England believed that the only Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church which had scriptural warrant were bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Richard Hooker lists these ministers in the fifth book Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1597): ' . . . divers learned and skillfull men have so taken it as if those places did intend to teach what orders of ecclesiasticall persons there ought to be in the Church of Christ, which thing wee are not to learne from thence but out of other partes of holie scripture, whereby it clearly appeareth that Churches Apostolique did knowe but three degrees in the power of ecclesiasticall order, at first Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons, afterwardes in stead of Apostles Bishopes concerning whose order wee are to speake in the seaventh booke.'127 In retaining the three-fold ministry, the Church of England maintained the practice of sequential ordination. And yet, by abolishing the minor orders, particularly the subdiaconate, which for centuries in the Western church had been held to be indispensable, the English Reformers demonstrated their conviction that the clerical cursus is adaptable. From the first Anglican Ordinal of 1550 to the present, the sequence of the ordination rites in the older Prayer Book(s) has reflected the classical sequence of the cursus honorum; the Ordinal begins with the 'Making of Deacons' followed by the 'Ordering of Priests' and the 'Consecration of Bishops'. The Ordinal reflects sequential ordination between the orders of deacon and presbyter. As noted earlier, the final prayer in the making of a deacon, for instance, contains the (ancient) petition: '[that they] . . . may so well behave themselves in this inferior office, that they may be found worthy to be called unto the higher ministries in thy Church; through the same . . . ' ,28 Furthermore, the rubric found at the conclusion of the rite prescribes sequential movement between the diaconate and the presbyterate: 'And here it must be declared unto the Deacon, that he must continue in that office of a Deacon the space of a whole year (except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop) to the intent he may be perfect, and well expert in the things pertaining to the Ecclesiastical Administration. If he has been found faithful and diligent, and has satisfied 127 Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V.78.9, ed. W. S p e e d Hill (Harvard University Press, C a m b r i d g e MA, 1977) p 446. 128 The First Prayer Book of King Edward VI 1549, p 302; The Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, The Book of Common Prayer (Cambridge University Press, 1918) p 622; Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, The Book of Common Prayer (1928) (The Church Pension Fund, N e w York, 1945) p 534.

29

S E Q U E N T I A L OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

the Bishop that he is sufficiently experienced in the things belonging to the Ministry, he may be admitted by his Diocesan to the Order of Priesthood at the Ember Seasons, or on any Sunday or Holy Day.'129 The Ordinal does not specify a corresponding coupling between the presbyterate and the episcopate. Here the sequence of presbyter and bishop must simply be assumed. Sequential ordination is also prescribed by Anglican canonical tradition. The Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1604, the foundational body of Anglican canon law, prescribe sequential ordination from the diaconate and the presbyterate. The canon parallels the direction and tenor of the Ordinal: 'XXXII. The office of deacon being a step or degree to the ministry, according to the judgement of the ancient fathers, and the practice of the primitive church; we do ordain and appoint, that hereafter no bishop shall make any person, of what qualities or gifts soever, a deacon and a minister both together upon one day; but that the order in that behalf prescribed book of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons, be strictly observed. Not that always every deacon shall be kept from the ministry for a whole year, when the bishop shall find good cause to the contrary; but that there being now four times appointed in every year for the ordination of deacons and ministers, there may ever be some trial of their behaviour in the office of deacon, before they be admitted to the order of priesthood.' 130 While the intent of the canon is to prohibit a candidate from being ordained a deacon and a presbyter on the same day, it describes the traditional Anglican understanding of the order of deacon, a 'step or degree to the Ministry' (i.e., the presbyterate) for the purpose of preparation and probation. The canon, however, does leave open the possibility of someone being ordained deacon and priest in two days, 'when the bishop shall find good cause'. Like the Ordinal, the Canons of 1604 do not prescribe sequential movement from the presbyterate to the episcopate. Reformation Anglicanism was not unaware of the historically conditioned nature of sequential ordination. Hooker, for instance, was well aware that historically bishops were not necessarily, nor universally, chosen from among the presbyters. In Book VII.5.6 he cites Jerome's Epistle 146 to Evangelus: ' . . . in Alexandria they used to chuse their Bishops altogether out of the colledge of their own Presbyters, and neither from abroad nor out of any inferior orders of the Clergy, whereas oftentimes elsewhere the use was to chuse as well from abroad as at home, as well as inferior unto Presbyters as Presbyters when they saw occasion.' 131 Hooker knew that in the early church bishops were chosen from those 'inferior unto the Presbyters', that is, deacons and those in minor orders—as well as presbyters—'when they saw occasion'. 129 The First Prayer Book of King Edward VI 1549, p 302. 130 G. R. Evans and J. Robert Wright (eds). The Anglican 1991) p 192. 131 Hooker, Lazvs, VII.5.6, 163.

30

Tradition: A Handbook

of Sources (SPCK, London,

THE

REFORMATION

Not long after Hooker's death, a significant Anglican departure from the inherited practice of sequential ordination occurred in 1610, when three Scottish Presbyterians were consecrated to the episcopate by English bishops. James I was eager to re-establish episcopacy in Scotland. So, he ordered three Presbyterian ministers, John Spottiswoode, Gaven Hamilton, and Andrew Laws to be consecrated to the episcopate by bishops of the Church of England, and then to return to Scotland. The consecrations took place on 21 October 1610. The original account of the incident, recorded by the Scottish historian John Spottiswoode (one of the candidates), relates that Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, felt unable to take part in the consecrations since the three Presbyterians had never been ordained priests. Andrewes was simply adhering to the rules of the cursus honorum. According to Spottiswoode, Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, intervened and supported the consecrations on the grounds that in countries where no bishops could be found, presbyteral ordination was counted as sufficient: 'A question in the mean time was moved by Dr. Andrewes Bishop of Ely touching the consecration of the Scottish Bishops, who, as he said "must first be ordained Presbyters, as having no ordination from a Bishop". The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was by, maintained "Tha t thereof there was no necessity, seeing where no bishop could be had, the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted, if there were any lawful vocation in most reformed Churches.f"] This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at that day, and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated.'132 Since the orders of the Presbyterians were recognized., Andrewes and the others would be ordaining presbyters to the episcopate according to the cursus honorum after all. A later account of this incident was chronicled by Peter Heylyn (1600-1668) in a post-Restoration work entitled Aerius Redivivus, Or the History of the Presbyterians. Heylyn's account corresponds to Spottiswoode's on a number of points. Both agree that Andrewes was unable to take part in the consecrations because the Presbyterians had not been ordained to the priesthood. Both agree that Archbishop Bancroft intervened and successfully persuaded Andrewes to participate. Heylyn's principal departure from Spottiswoode's account lies in his alternate version of Bancroft's reasons for supporting the consecrations: 'But first a scruple had been moved by the Bishop of Ely, concerning the capacity of the persons nominated for receiving Episcopal Consecration, in regard that none of them had formerly been ordained Priests: which scruple was removed by Archbishop Bancroft, alleging that there was no such necessity of receiving the Order of Priesthood, but that Episcopal Consecration might be given without it; as might have been exemplified in the cases of Ambrose and Nectarius of which the first was made Archbishop of Millain [sic.], and the other Patriarch of Constantinople, 132 J o h n Spottiswoode, The History of the Church of Scotland, Menston, Yorkshire, 1972) p 514.

31

Bk. VII, '1655 (Facsimile; Scolar Press,

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

without receiving any intermediary Orders, whether of Priest, or Deacon, or any other (if there were any other) at that time in the Church.' 133 According to Heylyn—in the disingenuous spirit of the Restoration—Bancroft said that the consecrations were to be thought of as per saltum in nature, following the examples of Ambrose of Milan and Nectarius of Constantinople in the late fourth century so that, in effect, three lay men were being ordained directly to the episcopate. Obviously, Spottiswoode and Heylyn are irreconcilable in terms of Bancroft's response to Andrewes. There are historians who can be found in support of either version. In Old Priest and New Presbyter Norman Sykes, for instance, submits that Spottiswoode was probably right. 134 For one thing, Sykes argues, Spottiswoode was an eyewitness; for another thing, the Church of England was much more flexible in matters of order in the seventeenth century prior to the Restoration than in subsequent centuries. It is interesting to note, however, that when Charles II attempted to re-establish episcopacy in Scotland in 1662, the four Presbyterian ministers nominated at that time were sequentially ordained deacon, presbyter, and bishop in a day,135 contrary to Canon XXXII. While Heylyn's interpretation is likely an instance of post-Restoration polemic against the validity of the ministries of the non-episcopal churches, it nevertheless reflects an Anglican perception, hinted at by Hooker, that the presbyterate is sacramentally dispensable in ordination to the episcopate. That a seventeenthcentury divine would admit that three 'lay people' (in Heylyn's eyes, at any rate) might legitimately and validly be ordained bishops without first being ordained deacons and presbyters is notable. This admission of the validity of per saltuni ordination, with respect to the episcopate, is evidence of an Anglican position which understands the practice of sequential ordination as mutable; contemporary Roman Catholic writers could not have made the same statement, at least with regards to the presbyterate and the episcopate. It is significant that in Aerius Redivivus Peter Heylyn cites both Ambrose and Nectarius as illustrations of patristic per saltum ordination. Heylyn's conviction that Ambrose was ordained directly to the episcopate anticipates the twentieth-century review of the nature of Ambrose's ordination. In the end, the most important point about Peter Heylyn's account is that his is the one remembered by later generations of Anglicans.1-36 The 1610 consecrations would be cited as precedent for the consecration of non-episcopally ordained ministers to the episcopate in plans of organic union between Anglican and nonepiscopal churches. 133 Peter Heylyn, Aerius Redwivus, Or the History of the Presbyterians 2nd ed. (Robert Battersby, London,1672) p 382. 134 N o r m a n Sykes, Old Priest and New Presbyter (Cambridge University Press, 1956) p 101. 135 N o r m a n Svkes, The Church of England and the non-episcopal Churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (SPCK, London, 1949) p 27 136 For example, the entry for 'Spottiswoode' in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church records that he 'did not receive episcopal consecration, however, until 1610, w h e n , with two other Scottish bishops, he w a s consecrated (per saltum, on High Anglican principles) at L o n d o n House.' F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., revised, Oxford University Press, 1990) p 1303.

32

5

The Modern Period The use of the 1610 consecrations according to Peter Heylyn's interpretation has been employed by various Lambeth Conferences in their treatment of plans of reunion between Anglican and non-episcopal churches. The Lambeth Conference of 1908 was the first to cite the 1610 consecrations as a precedent for plans of union in the last century. In Resolution 75 the bishops stated: T h e Conference. . . is of the opinion that, in the welcome event of any project of reunion between any Church of the Anglican Communion and any Presbyterian or other non-episcopal Church, which, while preserving the Faith in its integrity and purity, has also exhibited care as to the form and intention of ordina tion to the ministry, reaching the stage of responsible negotiation, it might be possible to make an approach to reunion on the basis of consecrations to the episcopate on lines suggested by such precedents as those of 1610.'137 A note within the body of the report (in Archbishop Davidson's edition) adds the following commentary: 'In so far as these precedents involve consecration to the Episcopate per saltum, the conditions of such consecrations would require careful investigation and statement.' 138 Although per saltum terminology is absent in the reports and resolutions of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, it reappears in the 1930 conference. In the report T h e Unity of the Church', the conference commended the mutual commissioning by Anglican ministers and others in the inaugurations of united churches. This gesture would satisfy the Anglican requirement that all ministers receive episcopal ordination. Such a 'commissioning' from the hands of an Anglican bishop is regarded, however, as ordination per saltum: 'On the question of Consecration per saltum [a footnote in the text elaborates: "i.e., Consecration to the Episcopate without previous ordination by a Bishop to the diaconate and priesthood".], our view is that while undesirable in the normal course of the Church's life, such Consecration is not invalid and in the special circumstances of the inauguration of the united Church is justifiable.'139 While this cautious statement upholds the desirability of the sequential ordination, it acknowledges that it is not an absolute necessity and may be abrogated in the interest of Christian unity. Presumably in the eyes of the 1930 Lambeth Fathers, bishops consecrated in united churches from non-Anglican traditions would have no less claim to the ascription 'historic' than they themselves. Nor has there

137 Roger Coleman, Resolutions of the Twelve l.ambeth Conferences 1867-19X8 (ABC, Toronto, 1989), p 43; R. T. Davidson (ed), The Six Lambeth Conferences: 1867-1920 (SPCK, London, 1929) p 336. 138 Davidson, Lambeth Conferences, p 432, n 2. 139 'The Unity of the Church,' in Lambeth 1930 (SPCK, London, 1930), p 128.

33

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

been any question of the broader recognition of the orders of presbyters and deacons ordained by such bishops (e.g. in the Church of South India), notwithstanding fears to the contrary. The advisability of using the 1610 consecrations and Peter Heylyn's interpretation of the same as a model in plans of union between Anglicans and non-episcopal churches in the last century is debatable. Nevertheless, it is important to note that two Lambeth Conferences have replied that the consecrations of Presbyterian ministers and others to the episcopate in plans of church unions involving Anglicans would not be according to the rules of the cursus honorum, but would be instances of direct ordination. Hence, from an Anglican point of view it cannot be maintained that sequential ordination is a theological or sacramental priority. While this position marks a departure from the inherited medieval tradition since the eleventh century, it is consonant with Western tradition to the tenth century, and in some Anglican quarters since the seventeenth.

34

6

The Restoration of the Diacoriate By the mid-nineteenth century, two movements arose within Anglican churches to restore something of the vision of the diaconate as portrayed in the bishop's examination of the candidates in the ordination liturgy: namely, as an order which does not simply lead to the presbyerate, but which has an integrity of its own. First, from the 1840s there were attempts to revise the diaconate as a permanent ministry for those not intending to be presbyters. Second, from the 1860s, a distinctive diaconate for women—the deaconess movement—began and spread throughout the Anglican Communion; at that time, patently, such deacons would not have expected ordination as presbyters. Calls for the restoration of permanent diaconate were heard in the Church of England as early as 1845, followed by similar calls in the Episcopal Church in 1853. By 1862 the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada had received a report calling for the restoration of the diaconate. In effect, it had become possible for those called to the diaconate to remain permanently in this order. Consequently, the diaconate ceased to be simply a step towards the presbyterate. And yet, as a report of the Committee on the State of the Diaconate to thel908 General Synod of the Church of England in Canada observed: T h e present condition of the Diaconate is much criticized as being merely an apprenticeship for the Priesthood. We agree that this is a change from the original institution. But we think it a change which has produced valuable results, and which could not be given up without serious loss. The Christian ministry needs a preliminary experience of entire detachment from secular employment, in which character may be tested and mistakes may be corrected, before the very great powers of the Priesthood are conferred, and its responsibilities imposed.' 140 The committee, which was in favour of both a restored diaconate and the continuance of the cursus honorum, proposed a two-tier diaconate: one for those to be advanced to the presbyterate and another for those who would remain deacons permanently. The motion to enact this part of the report was defeated. The early movement for the restoration of the diaconate sought simply to revive the office of deacon as a permanent order for some. In such a restored state, a permanent and distinct diaconate implied that the diaconate would cease to be understood exclusively in terms of a 'step or degree towards the Ministry'. Yet the practice of the cursus honorum was left unquestioned; it was assumed that all presbyters will have been first ordained to the diaconate. Once, however, the diaconate is conceived fundamentally as an order in its own right rather than merely a testing and training period for the presbyterate, the ground is set to question why candidates for the presbyterate need to be ordained deacons in the first place. 140 "Report of the C o m m i t t e e of the Lower House of the General S y n o d , on the Diaconate' in T h e General Synod of the Church of England in the Dominion of C a n a d a , journal of Proceedings of the Fifth Session, 1908 (Ontario C h u r c h m a n , Kingston, 1909) p 267.

35

SEQUENTIAL

OR

DIRECT

ORDINATION?

The Lambeth Conferences have given special attention to the restoration of the diaconate in recent years and, by implication, to the practice of sequential ordination. The 1958 Lambeth Conference report the 'Order of Deacon', proposed that the time had come when Anglicans must either conclude that there is no place for the order of deacon, or else begin to restore the office of deacon in the worship and witness of the church.'41 The bishops strongly endorsed the latter position. Consequently, Resolution 88 states: T h e Conference recommends that each province of the Anglican Communion shall consider whether the office of deacon shall be restored to its place as a distinctive order in the Church, instead of being regarded as a probationary period for the priesthood.'142 The 1968 Lambeth Conference also dealt with the restoration of the diaconate. In Resolution 32 the bishops recommended that the diaconate be open to men and women, to full-time church workers as well as to candidates for the presbyterate. The same resolution also directed that the ordination rites of the Anglican Communion be revised to take into account the new role of the diaconate, to remove references to the diaconate as an 'inferior office', and to emphasize the continuing element of diakonia in the ministries of presbyters and bishops.143 Resolution 32 of the 1968 Lambeth Conference was dealt with by the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Trinidad in April of 1976. Resolution 10 a) in the Section on Ministry of the council, in something of a mixed message, recommended: ' . . . that the use of the Diaconate as a period of preparation for the priesthood be retained: and that every church should review its practice to ensure that this period is one of continued training and further testing of vocation; but that it is not to be regarded as necessarily leading to the priesthood.'144 A1974 report of the Advisory Council for the Church's Ministry of the Church of England, Deacons in the Church, actually proposed the abolition of the diaconate as a distinct order of ministry within the church.145 While its authors favoured the demise of the diaconate altogether, they admitted that it would be simpler to 'let sleeping dogs lie' and retain the diaconate 'as a short probationary and intermediate stage through which pass all candidates for priesthood.'146 Although in the end the authors of Deacons in the Church advocated the traditional place of the diaconate in the cursus honorum, they acknowledged that candidates for the presbyterate need not necessarily receive prior ordination to deacon's orders. Ultimately, the Church of England accepted neither proposal from Deacons in the Church. 141 142 143 144

'The Order of Deacon' in The Lambeth Conference 795S (SPCK, London, 1958) Sec. 2, p 106. Coleman, Resolutions, p 140. Coleman, Resolutions, pp 162-163. Anglican Consultative Council—3: Trinidad, 23 March-2 April 1976 (Coventry Printers, Coventry, 1976) p 44. 145 Advisory Council for the Church's Ministry, Deacons in the Church (Church Information Office, Westminster, 1974) pp 22-25. 146 Advisory Council, Deacons (1974) p 23.

36

THE RESTORATION

OF T H E

D1ACONATE

Later, in a discussion documeiit entitled The Liturgical Ministry of Deacons (1987) the Liturgical Commission of the Church of England affirmed the place of the diaconate in the clerical cursus: 'There will be other occasions when the diaconal role is performed by a priest, exercising his diaconate rather than his priesthood. This may be expressed not only in what he does, but how he is vested . . . Bishops too,—who hold together and focus the whole ministry of the church— may exercise a specifically diaconal function from time to time, and it is good that they should be seen to do so.'147 The authors of this report clearly assume the cursus honorum: presbyters as well as bishops are to reflect liturgically their prior ordinations to the diaconate. In Deacons in the Ministry of the Church, a report commissioned by the General Synod in 1988, the distinctive ministry of the diaconate apart from the presbyterate is promoted: ' . . . a vocation to the diaconate is not to be defined in terms of priesthood, so that the deacon is seen as a substitute for the priest in certain (especially liturgical) situations. He or she is not a priest manque'. Although those who are called to the priesthood legitimately spend time as transitional deacons (and need to be encouraged to make the best use of their opportunities in that ministry) the use of the distinctive diaconate as the first step towards priesthood is not to be discouraged.' 148 'As part of the process of rediscovery, those who are preparing for priesthood will need to be helped in the understanding and use of their time in the diaconate. For not only might they work subsequently with distinctive deacons, but their priestly ministry is necessarily based upon diakonia.'m The concept of a distinctive and permanent diaconate is supported in this report; yet the current status of cursus honorum is strongly upheld. There is no suggestion that the transitional diaconate of candidates for the presbyterate in any way diminishes the significance of a distinctive and permanent diaconate. The report suggests that the diakonia in presbyteral ministry is based on the diaconate. An interesting and extensive debate on the cursus honorum comes from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. The movement for the restoration of the diaconate in the Episcopal Church of the United States has led to a different set of conclusions than in England. For example, as early as 1971 Urban T. Holmes III wrote: 'If we then clearly defined the priesthood as the order of those who wished to assume the role of the sacramental person, and remain responsible for the cultic life of the community (including preaching) and then defined the diaconate as the order of those possessing a professional competence, it 147 General Synod (Church of England), The Liturgical Ministry of Deacons: A Report by the Liturgical Commission, A Discussion Document (General Synod of the Church of England, London, 1987) p 3. 148 General S y n o d (of the Church of England), Deacons in the Ministry of the Church (Church House Publishing, Westminster, 1988) pp 105-106.

37

S E Q U E N T I A L OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

would be clear that we would do best to undo the fourth century and abolish the hierarchical ordering of deacon, priest, and bishop. There is no demanding theological reason for requiring a man seeking the priesthood to be first made a deacon, and the diaconate will never be understood as a significant order until it ceases to be a stepping-stone to "higher things" .'15° One of the most comprehensive and influential studies on the diaconate to emerge from the Episcopal Church is The Diaconate: A Full and Equal Order, by James M. Barnett. Barnett condemns the cursus honorum as being the major contributor to the decline of the order of deacon, and insists that as long as the diaconate is a stepping-stone to the presbyterate it will always be an inferior office. And so, he commends ordination directly to the presbyterate to those called to that office: 'As the idea of cursus honorum was the greatest single factor in bringing about the decline of the office [i.e. of deacon], nothing would help restore its integrity more than a return to the original practice of the pre-Nicene Church by ordaining only those to the diaconate who intend to make it a permanent vocation. Others, notably those seeking the priesthood or selected for the episcopate, would be ordained directly to those orders. Baptism would become the essential sacramental prerequisite for ordination to any office in the Church.'151 Barnett not only rejects the prescribed sequential movement from the diaconate to the presbyterate, but the cursus through all orders of ministry: 'A necessary part of any profound renewal of the ministry must include abandoning all requirements of passing through successive orders or offices.'152 Barnett does not deny that those who are to be chosen for an office in the church must first have demonstrated their competence for office by service in the church. Rather, he distinguishes between the necessity of testing people and the requirement of a succession or series of offices. The Council of Associated Parishes, an organization within the Episcopal Church, ardently supports the restoration of the diaconate. In the introduction to a 1991 brochure on ordination liturgies, entitled Holy Orders: The Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, the Associated Parishes makes the following statement on the practice of sequential ordination: 'Deacons until very recently have been understood as baby presbyters, to be nourished until they can be ordered to a "higher" ministry. Now, however, there is a greater sense of deacons embodying the diakonia or servanthood given to the whole body of Christ. 'As long as orders are viewed hierarchically, so that one begins at the bottom rung, the diaconate, proceeds to the presbyterate, with an accompanying progression upward from small to large congregations, 149 General S y n o d , Deacons in the Ministry, p 108. 150 U r b a n T. H o l m e s III, The Future Shape of Ministry (Seabury, N e w York, 1971) p 254. This is the only reference H o l m e s m a k e s to the cursus in the book. 151 J a m e s M. Barnett, The Diaconate: A Full and Equal Order (Seabury, N e w York, 1981) p 156. 152 Barnett, Diaconate, p 145.

38

THE

RESTORATION

OF T H E

DIACONATE

and sometimes gains the crown of the episcopate, the church will imitate the competitive spirit of the world and will be untrue to the model set forth in scripture and ancient tradition.' In 1989 the Committee on Ministry of the Anglican Church of Canada presented to the General Synod its report, A Plan to Restore the Diaconate in the Anglican Church of Canada. The Canadian report also strongly endorsed the diaconate as a permanent and distinctive vocation. Further, it too advocated the abolition of the canonical sequence between the diaconate and the presbyterate: 'One proposal arising from this research suggests that direct ordination to the presbyterate (per saltum ordination to the presbyterate) is consistent with the practices of the early Church, and will contribute to the integrity of the diaconate. In other words, persons called to be deacons would be ordained to the diaconate, and those called to the presbyterate would be ordained to the presbyterate. Should this practice become normative, the diaconate would cease to be a stepping stone to the priesthood. 'Our Church should pursue this matter in consultation with other branches of the communion as well as with other Churches which hold to the historic ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons. However, measures to renew the diaconate can and should be pursued now, while at the same time the Church strives to reach a decision regarding the desirability of per saltum ordination to the presbyterate.'153 In an appendix, under the heading of theological considerations, the committee reported: 'The irreducible nature of the diaconate is that it exists "to help those who direct the church." It can be a step toward the presbyterate but by itself it need not be so. It is possible to ordain directly to the presbyterate.' 134 One of the strongest statements from the Lambeth Conference on the restored diaconate appears in the section reports of the 1988 Conference. A section of the report on 'Ministry and Mission', entitled The Distinctive Diaconate', stressed that: W e need to rediscover the diaconate as an order complementing the order of priesthood rather than as a merely transitional order which it is at present. We should ensure that such a diaconate does not threaten the ministry of the laity but seeks to equip and further it. Such a diaconate, furthermore, would serve to renew the diakonia of the whole Church; laity, deacons, priests, and b i s h o p s . . . 'Similarly the long-standing tradition that the diaconate is an "inferior" order (cf. the old ordinals) through which you pass on the way to the priesthood is also an obstacle to the emergence of a distinctive diaconate.'155 The report is clearly critical of the cursus honorum and cites it as an obstacle to the emergence of a distinctive diaconate; for all that, it does not explicitly offer an alternative. 153 A Plan to Restore the Diaconate in the Anglican Church of Canada (Anglican Book Centre, Toronto, 1989) p 7. 154 A Plan to Restore the Diaconate, p. 15. 155 Sees. 121, 122, 'Ministry and Mission' in The Lambeth Conference 1988 (Church H o u s e Publishing, London, 1988) p 56.

39

7

Conclusion The aim of this historical overview of the practice of sequential ordination has not been to search for precedent to bolster one side or the other in the current debate. Indeed, ample precedent can be found for both sides. In both theory and practice, sequential ordination has never been a universal tradition of the catholic church. Prior ordination to the diaconate and presbyterate as an unconditional prerequisite to episcopal ordination is not supported by early, patristic or early medieval practice. Nor is it supported by Anglican thought and practice in either the seventeenth or twentieth centuries. Unless one is willing to posit that episcopal ordination rites such as OR XXXIV and OR XXXV are deficient, or that bishops such as Fabian, Athanasius, Ambrose, Nectarius, Augustine, Leo the Great, Hilary, Gregory the Great, Theodore of Tarsus, Nicholas I, John Spottiswoode, or Lesslie Newbigin are less than true bishops, then one must allow that sequential ordination is not a theological priority, but a canonical convention which arose to correct specific pastoral situations which do not confront the church today. The practice of ordaining people to more than one 'life-time' vocational ministry, and the use of one order as a preparation for another, is certainly open to question. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that serial or sequential ordination is an ancient practice, even though history indicates prior to the eleventh century that it was seldom uniform or universal. In short, from a historical point of view, all one can say is that both direct and sequential ordination have ample witnesses. Identifying periods in the life of the church when sequential or cumulative ordination was not practised is no reason for abandoning the practice today. Rather, historical investigation serves to help decide what the essentials of the tradition of sequential ordination are, and what are the parameters of its adaptation today. Historically, the essence of sequential ordination has not been a question of sacramental theology. Instead, the sources surveyed from the fourth to the eleventh centuries indicate that the primary objective of sequential ordination was to ensure proven and prepared leaders for the church. Evidence from the same period, as well as Anglican understanding in the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, suggests that the parameters of its adaptation have been fairly broad. An appeal to history on its own will not solve the problem. It can, however, broaden the question and elicit new solutions. Quintessentially, sequential ordination and the interstices are two sides of the same coin; one without the other defeats the purpose of both, namely probation and preparation. And so, without adequate intervals between the reception of one order and the next, the cursus honorum is of little value in achieving its fundamental purpose. From a pastoral point of view, one question is whether the current exercise of the cursus honorum in Anglicanism, in particular the sequence from deacon to presbyter with a canonical interval ranging from between a day and a year, truly functions as a period of training and testing. 40

CONCLUSION

Given the growing dissatisfaction of this practice, articulated especially by proponents for the restoration of the diacona te, the answer seems to be no. A sixmonth period in the diaconate, say, often in situations where such a deacon is either the unsupervised incumbent of a parish or the 'priest manque" assistant in another, cannot possibly serve as an appropriate and satisfactory period of testing for the presbyterate, let alone an authentic exercise of the diaconate. Furthermore, if a bishop is unsure if a person is an appropriate or adequately prepared candidate for the presbyterate, the bishop should not ordain such an individual to the office and work of a deacon. The history of sequential ordination seems to offer two alternatives to the present question. The first is to retain sequential ordination but return to the interstices of the patristic and medieval periods that is, five years in the diaconate prior to election and ordination to the presbyterate. The restoration of the ancient interstice between the diaconate and the presbyterate would doubtless infuriate those who reject the practice of using one order in preparation for another; it would also fall into the category of sheer antiquarianism and impracticality. Conversely, a five-year period could offer an occasion for a more authentic exercise of diaconal ministry in which deacons may well discover that their vocation lies in this order rather than in another. The second alternative is to return to the practice of ordaining people directly to the presbyterate. Since the fundamental purpose of the cursus honorum is the selection, preparation, and testing of the clergy, these categories must be part of the criterion for its continuance or modification. In the contemporary church, the standards for selection, training, and testing are met by institutions such as ecclesiastical selection processes, diocesan candidates' committees, canonical examinations, theological colleges, various forms of clinical pastoral education, psychological testing, and the like, rather than by the canonical requirement of sequential ordination. Since there are no pastoral or theological reasons for retaining sequential ordination, and there may be compelling reasons for direct ordination, the second option is perhaps the more viable. In a church with a restored diaconate, there is no reason to suppose that deacons would not be as eligible as presbyters for election and ordination to the episcopate. Again, there is no compelling theological reason against the election and ordination of a lay person to the episcopate. In both cases, the primary consideration is whether such candidates have been truly called and adequately prepared and tested for episcopal ministry. After all, the lessons from the history of the cursus honorutn demonstrate instances where such ordinations have been of benefit to the whole church. It is possible that in the future the church may find the best candidates for the episcopate amongst the deacons or laity. Or, the church may continue to find that the priestly, prophetic, and pastoral gifts it seeks in candidates for the episcopate are most effectively tested and discerned in those who exercise them in the order of presbyter.

41

SEQUENTIAL

OR D I R E C T

ORDINATION?

Finally, Christian history in general, and the history of the cursus honorum in particular, demonstrate that canonical traditions and pastoral practices are subject to change. There is no compelling reason to suppose that the practice of sequential ordination is past the point of further adaptation. As it happened, the Reformation Church of England altered significantly the received practice of sequential ordination. Perhaps the movement for the restoration of the diaconate challenges Anglicans to consider further adaptations today. In the process of discernment, the church listens to many voices. It is hoped that the history of sequential ordination itself may be one such voice as the church contemplates the issues surrounding the cursus honorum and direct ordination. John St. H. Gibaut, Saint Paul University, Ottawa.

42