Bishop,priest,deacon: when accepted as THE three orders

[Digitonomy]

We currently accept that there are three levels of ordination in the Sacrament of Holy Orders: bishop, priest, and deacon.

When were these three first specifically enumerated as the three Holy Orders, distinct from each other and different from other offices owing to their sacramental character?

 

[gelsbern]

There are a couple posts that talk about this in

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93733&highlight=ignatius+deacon+overseer+bishop

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=451&highlight=deacon+overseer+elder

 

[DeFide]

Digitonomy:

We currently accept that there are three levels of ordination in the Sacrament of Holy Orders: bishop, priest, and deacon.

When were these three first specifically enumerated as the three Holy Orders, distinct from each other and different from other offices owing to their sacramental character?

Is there a reason why the question comes up?

I’d check here:
newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

 

[JimG]

I’m no expert on this, but I’ll attempt a reply.

The New Testament mentions all three of these orders: priests (presbyteros), bishops or overseers (episcopos), and deacons. So apparently all these major orders have been around from the beginning.

Bishops are primary. The office of the bishop contains the fullness of the priesthood. All the apostles were bishops. Priests and deacons perform some but not all priestly functions.

There is no priestly office higher than bishop. Even the pope is, as far as the Sacrament of Holy Orders is concerned, a bishop; but as the bishop of Rome he succeeds to Peter’s primacy.

In the past there were instituted minor orders, which are not really part of the sacrament. In the seminaries, one used to receive the minor orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, and Acolyte, shortly after receiving the tonsure, which was symbolic of entry into the clerical state.

The minor orders have now been suppressed, and we have returned to the three major orders, which are and have always been, the only ones requiring ordination by the laying on of hands.

 

[Todd_Easton]

There seems to be a clear distinction between the order of bishops/presbyters and the order of deacons in the New Testament. (See Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Didache 15;* 1 Clement* 42.) The distinction between bishops and presbyters is less clear in the New Testament.

However, by the time Ignatius of Antioch wrote his various letters to the churches about A.D. 110, there seems to be a clear distinction between the three orders of bishop, presbyters, and deacons, with the presbytery “fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp” (Ephesians 4) and deacons “subject to the bishop … and to the presbytery.” (Magnesians 2). Ignatius encouraged the laity to reverence their bishop as Jesus Christ and to reverence their presbytery as His Apostles which seems to indicate that the different orders were to receive different degrees of reverence.

 

[Digitonomy]

Clearly these have been around since the beginning, or very nearly so. My question is when our current understanding of the sacramental uniqueness of these roles was first declared doctrine, dogma, etc.

DeFide:

Is there a reason why the question comes up?

I was disturbed and confused to read what Thomas Aquinas had to say about this. It appears that he did not share our understanding of this issue, so that clarification must have come since his time.

Whether the episcopate is an order? from Summa Theologica

One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order.

Further, the greater Orders are not conferred except on Saturdays [The four Ember Saturdays]. But the episcopal power is bestowed on Sundays [Dist. lxxv, can. Ordinationes]. Therefore it is not an Order.

I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated (37, 2,4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.

Reply to Objection 2. Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [Cf. III, 63, 3]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I still don’t quite understand your question. Perhaps the answer you seek can be found in the ordination rites for bishops, elders (presbyters), and deacons preserved in Hippolytus’ The Apostolic Tradition, chapters 2-8, written about A.D. 215.
In the ordination of a deacon, only the bishop lays on his hand, 2because the deacon is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do that which he commands. 3For he is not part of the council of the clergy, but acts as a manager, and reports to the bishop what is necessary. 4He does not receive the spirit common to the elders, which the elders share, but that which is entrusted to him under the bishop’s authority. 5This is why only the bishop makes a deacon. 6Upon the elders, the other elders place their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. 7Indeed, the elder has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to give it. 8Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of the elder he seals; the bishop ordains. (The Apostolic Tradition 8:1-8)

 

[Digitonomy]

Hippolytus is all fine and good, and his work appears to demonstrate the customs of ordination way back in the day. The problem is, then we have Aquinas 1000 years later claiming that the three higher orders are priest, deacon, and subdeacon, and that the consecration of a bishop does not imprint a character on his soul.

Therefore, we have several possibilities:

1. 
   *]Thomas explained the accepted position of the Church up to his time, but the Church later clarified the matter in a way contrary to what most had accepted prior to that.
   *]Thomas selected his position from a diversity of opinion which existed within the Church up to his time, but the Church later clarified the matter in a way contrary to what Thomas thought.
   *]Thomas made up his position pretty much out of whole cloth, being ignorant of the position of the Church up to that time.
   *]Thomas, radical that he was, ignored the ancient and accepted position of the Church in setting out his position, because he found his approach more logical.
   
   I find it hard to believe 3, that he was ignorant. And although he was a bit of a radical, 4 suggests he was deliberately heretical. I suppose 1 is possible; the Church does on occasion clarify things in a manner that might bewilder earlier faithful. But I find option 2 to be the most likely: there were a variety of positions out there about Holy Orders on which the Church had not yet ruled on, and Thomas picked the wrong one. Question is, when did the Church rule out Thomas’s view?

 

[Digitonomy]

Found a bit more information on Wikipedia(bolding mine):

During the Counter-reformation, the Council of Trent issued a decree outlining the orders of the clergy. The first four, the minor orders… The major orders were the final ones, and the ministers in those orders were:

* Subdeacon,
* Deacon,
* Priest, and
* Bishop

There is disagreement as to whether Council of Trent defined seven or eight orders. Chapter II of the decree talks about seven orders, omitting bishops, which would indicate that bishops are merely super-priests and not a separate order. However, chapter IV talks of bishops, distinguishes them from the other ecclesiastical degrees of ministers, and discusses their ordination, indicating that they are a separate order from the presbyteriate.

I haven’t dug through the Tridentine documents yet, but assuming this is a fair description, it sounds like Thomas’s view persisted 300 years after he set it down to paper.

Here we go: 23rd Session of the Council of Trent
Chapter II is indeed titled “On the Seven Orders,” and bishop is not mentioned as one of the seven…

 

[Digitonomy]

A bit more from that Tridentine link…
Chapter IV, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination
does discuss bishops. Unfortunately, it’s so full of long-winded and tortuous sentences it brings to mind the joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Luckily, they boiled the important things down to a few canons.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that bishops are not superior to priests; or, that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests; or, that orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.

I notice that they worded this in such a way that one could repeat exactly what Thomas said, and not be anathema (he did admit that bishops had a higher power than priests in regard to their office). But nothing in Canon VII or Chapter IV states that bishops have a unique character imprinted on their soul which is distinct from that of a priest.

However, Thomas also claims that in the ordination of acolytes a character is imprinted on their soul. Is Thomas just a little loopy, or do I misunderstand the meaning of character?