Holy Orders-I'm confused, please help

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CollegeKid

Guest
Is there biblical evidence for the three-tiered ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon? I think I read in the Catechism once that there is but I’ve also read in other sources that it developed from a two-tiered ministry of bishops and deacons to bishop, priest, and deacon.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Is there biblical evidence for the three-tiered ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon? I think I read in the Catechism once that there is but I’ve also read in other sources that it developed from a two-tiered ministry of bishops and deacons to bishop, priest, and deacon.
Click to expand...
Bishops, presbyters and deacons are recorded in the bible. Priests came along afterward. Bishops are also known as presbyters in the bible. The word “priest” is a contraction of the word “presbyter”. In the very early church, bishops provided all of the ministries of the church. As the church grew, the bishops found it impossible to oversee each and every parish, so they started giving a good portion of thier minsterial duties to a different level of presbyter, the deacons. When this wasn’t enough, they established the priesthood. Bishops became overseers of dioceses and delegated to the priest and deacons. Bishops still maintain thier priestly duties and do everything parish priests do.

Keep in mind that deacons were established as helpers to the bishops. They were established by the bishops themselves. So it is completely legitimate for the bishops to establish the priesthood.

Keep also in mind that the events that occured in the bible happened before the bible was written. The bible is not the precident whish established the bishops, deacons or priesthood. The bible simply records what happened. Bishops first, then the bible.

The peace of Christ be with you,
Subrosa
 
Thanks, that’s a good start. I’m going to do a little more research; I may have more questions.
 
The bishops did not “establish” the Catholic priesthood - it was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper; i.e., the First Mass.

During the lifetime of the Apostles, the offices of bishops (episkopoi) and priests (presbuteroi) were frequently coterminous (cf. the Pastoral Epistles); the distinctions between them began to grow along with the Church.
 
I was reading again from Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church. He cited St. Paul’s list of a sevenfold hiearchy of orders- apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle-workers, healers, helpers, and administrators in 1 Cor. 12:28, saying that in Paul’s generation the first three- apostles, prophets, and teachers were the chief “‘orders.’” He went on to say that 60 or 70 years later in the age of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, the three chief orders had transitioned into bishop, presbyter, and deacon. I see the correlation between apostle and bishop since we believe they are the apostles’ successors, but to me I guess it looks like prophets were replaced by the helpers or administrators (deacons). Did Paul’s term “teachers” refer to presbyters? Also, the other major issue I’m trying to get a good grasp of is how the distinction between bishops and priests came about, or if there even was one from the beginning. This is how I approach it, but correct me if need be-Christ instituted the priesthood/presbyterate (episcopate more accurate?) on Holy Thursday with the apostles who were basically the first bishops and they contained the fullness of the priesthood, as today’s bishops do and as bishops have throughout history. I don’t understand what happened from there on out.
 
Is it that certain presbyters rose in prominence and the levels of their responsibilites and they began to form the more distinguished order of bishops (episcopate)? Or first there were bishops and they began to ordain men (presbyters) who share in part of the duties of the priesthood while only the bishops remain in the fullness of the priesthood? I definitely see a prefigurement of the presbyterate, after all God gave the priesthood to the Jews as recorded in the Old Testament, I guess I just don’t see how it transitioned into the New Covenant. Did the Jewish priests of the OT resemble more closely our priests or our bishops?
 
Paul’s Letter to Titus:

Paul says he assigned Titus to Crete. He tells Titus in turn to appoint men for each town. That’s three levels, with Paul the Apostle as the highest.
 
Okay, so I’ve been reading some more from Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church; I’m going to try and paraphrase what I’ve learned about the development of the upper two orders and you guys tell me if this sounds more or less right. By the way, all your guys’ responses have helped, I’m just trying to piece this together. Anyway, here goes: Christ left us with priests, whom I’m going to start out referring to as presbyter-bishops, since the Bible uses the two terms interchangeably for the same people. This what Chadwick does in his book. When the Apostles started to leave behind local clergy in the towns where they started churches after they moved on to start churches in other places, this was the first evidence that there would be further distinction between bishops and presbyters. These local presbyter-bishops were subordinate to the Apostles. In the time of people like Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, when mobile Apostolic authority was going or gone, in Christian communities one presbyter-bishop would rise above the rest of the presbyter-bishops in his level of prominence and responsibility (“first among equals”), in accordance with the adapting needs of the early church. He would be called the bishop and his colleagues presbyters. The order of episcopate was starting to rise above the presbyterate, while remaining on a level with it. Bishops inherited the role of apostle and prophet. Presbyters inherited the lower role of teacher, while retaining a share of the duties they’d had as presbyter-bishops, like celebrating the eucharist and baptizing.
 
CollegeKid:

Let’s see if I can’t help put things in perspective. Christ called 12 Apostles and, after the death of Judas, Mathias was selected to keep the number at 12. Paul refers to himself as an Apostle, but sleected “out of time” meaning that he was an Apostle who was not part of the original group, nor like Mathias, one of the 72 disciples.

Those are the only Apostles there are. However, the Apostles set up local churches and chose a man to head them. In Scripture the term used to refer to him is episcopos which means “overseer” and from which we get “episcopal” and, from that “bishop.” The rule was “one city, one bishop.” However, some cities were too large for a single bishop, and so that bishop choose other men, called presbuteroi (elders) whom we now call priests. They didn’t get all the authority of the bishop. From the Acts of the Apostles we see the selection of seven men who are called diaconoi or deacons.

Now, it’s important to understand that Christ directly established the “priesthood” in the sense of the fullness of the priesthood which was given to the Apostles. They, in turn, passed this on to the bishops who gave part of their authority to the priests.

St. Paul, unfortunately, uses both episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably in his letters (as St. Augustine points out). Yet it is clear that by the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch (beginning of the 2nd century) the order of bishop, priest and deacon were clearly delineated, although the theology behind them was still being developed.

Does that help?

Deacon Ed
 
Yes Deacon Ed it does. Thank you. Since I’m assuming from your title that you are in fact a deacon, can I ask you another, rather unrelated question? Do deacons today participate in the liturgy, in most parishes? Also, I’m beginning to hear about other “ministries” of the church, like acolyte. What are all the ministries (I’m assuming there are only several) and how are they different from holy orders? Thanks.
 
CollegeKid, while waiting for DeaconEd, you may want to check out this thread, the ministries exist but not as formal orders any more.
 
That is a wonderful book and we used it as a text book in one of my Patristics classes at the seminary. If you follow Chadwick you will see that he is following the historical develoment of the offices and not the establishment thereof. As Deacon Ed mentioned there is a two-fold establishment from Apostolic times to the time of the Anti-Nicene Fathers.

What I think confuses people about the roles in that time of the offices is that they are much different because some faith practices are different. To understand this one must understand the devotional and worship life of the early Church.

Today we have daily Mass and Mass on every Sunday. In that time we see that the Eucharist was only celebrated by the Bishop and the occasion differed with the individual See. The Deacon was second to the Bishop and ran the temporal affairs of the Church. This is why you see Deacons being in charge of the purse for the poor and the material goods of the Church such as St. Vincent. While the role of priest existed it also varied from See to See per the demands placed upon the Bishop. It is not clear if the priest was originally allowed to celebrate the Eucharist or if he was only allowed to celebrate the Agape which was more common than the Divine Liturgy itself.

As time progressed we see the role of the priest begin to outstrip the role of Deacon because of the greater emphasis placed on the celebration of the Mass (Divine Liturgy) and because of the extra emphasis it was required to be said more often. It is generally believed that this is when the Bishops gave the priests the faculties to celebrate the Sacraments (however again this is a See to See issue). Now, this is not a slow process but happened fairly quickly in the Church. I think that as you continue to read Chadwick the larger picture will come to light.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Yes Deacon Ed it does. Thank you. Since I’m assuming from your title that you are in fact a deacon, can I ask you another, rather unrelated question? Do deacons today participate in the liturgy, in most parishes? Also, I’m beginning to hear about other “ministries” of the church, like acolyte. What are all the ministries (I’m assuming there are only several) and how are they different from holy orders? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m an ordained deacon. Most deacons participate in the Liturgy as long as they are able. In fact, the Liturgy is where we, as deacons, bring the prayers and needs of the people. Our role in the Liturgy grows out of and is the visible sign of our works of charity in the community.

There are two formal ministries in the Church: acolyte and lector. These were, at one time, minor orders but Pope Paul VI elliminated them and took these two and made them ministries to which a man (and only a man) can be installed. The role of lector is to do the readings at Mass other than the Gospel. He ministers the lectionary. The acolyte is the deacon’s assistant and helps in preparing the altar and the materials needed for Mass. In his absence the deacon would take on this role. In the absence of a deacon the acolyte assists the priest.

Both of these ministries are required for one seeking Holy Orders. I spent six months as an acolyte and a year as a lector before being ordained a deacon.

Deacon Ed
 
As a deacon in the archdiocese of Chicago, during our formation years to become fully ordained as a deacon, we received the minor orders of acolyte and lector at two different times during our formation. Both were done by a bishop too during special services. At ordination, Cardinal George formally ordained us to the order of permanent deacon. It took almost 18 years before I answered the call to ordination and the desire to minister to the church was solidly there even when I was a teen…I just didn’t realize that it would get so strong. I have never been happier than I am now, serving the Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top