At this moment of the restored order of the Permanent Diaconate there is an area that requires clarification and that has to do with whether or not the Transitory Deacon, on his way to Priesthood, is fundamentally the same as the Permanent Deacon. This article will examine (test) the common view held today of the two ministers: the Permanent and the Transitory Deacon. The intention here is simply to shed light on the matter and in so doing allow us to arrive at an objectively true point of reference. By developing an objective understanding, that takes into account biblical, historical and theological sources, we can correctly identify the Permanent and Transitory Deacon in context and, hopefully, discover a richer and more meaningful understanding of our identity as Permanent Deacons today.
Current Understanding
The contemporary or common view point held today is that the Permanent and the Transitory Deacon are, ministerially and hierarchically, the same. One however remains (permanent) at a lower level of the Ecclessial hierarchy and the other (transitional) eventually progresses from that same lower level to the Priesthood, a higher level of the same hierarchy.
We proceed to analyse this understanding in the light of biblical, historical and theological sources in order to endorse the current view as true or to propose an alternative and more accurate view. We bear in mind that the correct understanding today of the restored order of Permanent Deacon must be "in complete continuity with ancient tradition" (Congregation for Catholic Education & Congregation for the Clergy).
First Century
The advent of the 7 proto-deacons as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is well known and the subsequent letters of Paul to Timothy and to the Philippians corroborate the institution of the Deacon as a stable, permanent ministry. Paul gives us an illustration, a snap shot as it were, of the clergy at that point in the life of the early Church (c.65). There are two distinct offices working with the Apostles; that of Episcopos (apostolic succession of leadership) and that of Diakonos (apostolic succession of servant ministers). According to the book of Acts, it is the Apostles who institute these offices to share in their work and for the continuity of the mission of Christ's Church, therefore the term 'apostolic successsion' is appropriate and relevant and can be applied to both ministers albeit with distinct mandates. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from Paul's letters that celibacy for clergy was not a rule or an issue at this time and the option for either way of life, i.e. married or celibate, was present to the clergy. A married man who met the criteria in time of need could become a Bishop or a Deacon. Towards the end of the first century, when Bishops ordained Priests to help them, Priests also had the options available to them. By the end of the first century both Deacon and Priest were the Bishop's helpers in his diocese.
Second Century
From the text of the Didache (teachings of the earliest Church Fathers) it is apparent that a theology of the clerical offices of Bishop, Deacon and Priest had developed. At the turn of the 1st century, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes "Let everyone revere the deacon as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the Apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church". He's theological teaching of the clergy gives us some insight into the thinking and understanding of the time. Both Bishop and Deacon have a direct link with the Apostles and therefore share in Apostolic succession: one in leadership (father) and the other in servant (son).
Third century
From the writings of the 3rd century, taken from the Didascallia, it is clear that the clerical orders of the Church continued to consist of 3 persons: the Bishop, the Deacon and the Priest. The aspect of stages or minor orders to ordination were not yet established. The Bishop, as in the first and second century, ordained men, married or single, who met the criteria, directly to their specific clerical order. Both Deacon and Priest therefore answered directly to their Bishop. The office of transitory deacon, like the minor orders mentioned, did not exist either. The minor orders referred to were for example; doorkeeper, lector, acolyte and sub-deacon.
The theology of the clergy developed in the late 1st and early 2nd century is carried over into the 3rd century. Again the direct relationship of the Bishop and Deacon to the Apostles is maintained. This theology, while sound in its logic based on Apostolic tradition, had an unexpected side effect. "The Didascallia (3rd century) evidences a degree of supremacy of deacons over the priests, since deacons are compared to Christ, while priests are only compared to the Apostles" (International Theological Commission).
Fourth century
In the first 3 centuries of the Church, celibacy had not become Church law. Bishops, Deacons and Priests could be married men as was the case with some of the Apostles such as Peter. Celibacy however did become an issue in the 4th century onward. The Council of Elvira (c. 305) brought out the first rule of celibacy for clergy. Although married Bishops, Deacons and Priests were still to be found throughout the 4th century, the die was cast and the process of conforming the clergy had begun. The Council of Carthage (c. 390) made it a requirement that married clergy abstain from sexual relations with their wives. During this century we also see a 'new' theology of the clergy developing in what appears to be an effort to break with the past theology and tradition. Theological propositions were developed to identify the clergy earlier than Christ. Deacons were identified with the Levites, Bishops and Priests with other old testament figures e.g. Moses and Aaron.
It is from this period of Church history that we see the movement towards celibacy of the clergy gaining momentum and which would have dire consequences for the order of Permanent Deacon.
During the third and fourth century there was also the contentious issue of hierarchical power and authority. As mentioned in the Didache and the Didascalia, the theology of the clergy that developed out of the 1st and early 2nd century led to the Permanent Deacons becoming very powerful figures in the Church, overshadowing the Priests. The synod of Arles (c. 314) and in particular the Council of Nicaea (c. 325), sought to 'clip' the wings of the Deacons who, in some instances arising from their 'senior' position, assumed functions that were proper to the Priests.
The 'Constitutiones Apostolorum', drawn up in the fourth century became a watershed document affecting the order of the Permanent Diaconate. It presented a prayer of ordination effectively introducing the office of the transitory deacon as the final stage before Priesthood. By virtue of this development the transitory deacon, unlike the Permanent Deacon, did not have a direct relationship with the Bishop due to the subordinate nature of the office within the hierarchy as well as its temporary state. It appears that the Permanent Deacon, in some way, was no longer fulfilling his role of servant, but aspired to preside and lead, resulting in the authentic ministry being somewhat neglected hence the institution of minor orders or stages to compensate for the 'lost' deacon. It also appears that the effort, more than 'clipping' wings, was to discontinue the order of Permanent Deacon and by so doing, rewrite the clerical orders. It must be remembered that the introduced minor orders or stages now formed the path to priesthood only, with such minor orders being the functions proper to the Permanent Deacon. The celibacy rule also meant that the order of Permanent Deacon became superflous. After all, why be an unmarried Permanent Deacon and face the hostility of the period, when the incentive was there for one to be a Priest who could potentially 'climb' the Ecclesial ladder?
Twentieth century
The key to a true understanding of the relationship between the Permanent and transitory Deacon lies in the restoration of the order of Permanent Deacon during the second Vatican Council. The order was restored "in complete continuity with ancient tradition" (Congregation for Catholic Education & Congregation for the Clergy). In this restoration the celibacy rule of the 4th century onward was effectively repealed for this particular clerical order. The restoration in "continuity with ancient tradition" has meant a search for the period and theological context which correctly places the Permanent Deacon. The correct ancient tradition must then link, through time, to the present.
Since the transitory deacon is, historically and theologically, a creation of the 4th century Church, irrespective of the circumstances, and remains to this day as the final stage to Priesthood, still bound by the rule of celibacy and a temporary subordinate of the Presbyterate, the Permanent Deacon, given its prior tradition, cannot take its lead from this period or from this office. Rather, the task is to identify the original Diaconate tradition which pre-dates the 4th century.
Apostolic tradition, that benchmark of Church tradition and, from that perspective, the most ancient tradition, not to be confused with the manuscript of Hippolytus "The Apostolic Tradition" (c. 215), should in fact be the starting or reference point for all clerical offices as befits the people of the Resurrection, the people of the new and everlasting covenant. Since the office of Deacon was, based on sacred scripture, established by the Apostles as their co-workers, togther with the Bishop and later, after the Apostles, became "the eyes, ears, heart and soul of the Bishop", this must, for the sake of objectivity, form the basis of our understanding of the Permanent Deacon today. From the information already mentioned in this article, the authentic theology of the Permanent Deacon is to be found in the earliest theology of the clergy at the turn of the 1st century. To ignore this truth would be most unfortunate and would immediatley compromise the identity, ministry and life of the Permanent Deacon and the vision of Vatican II in fidelity to Apostolic tradition.
The obvious pitfalls of the 3rd and 4th century need to be clearly understood if we are to avoid a repeat of that most unfortunate situation. The alleged abuse of power by the Permanent Deacons of this period must be a constructive lesson to Deacons today. We cannot but recognise in all honesty that ours is an Apostolic succession in humble service both inside and outside the Church. The historical tensions and friction with the Priests must be tactfully avoided in our time and a co-working relationship built. The distinction between superior and subordinate (senior and junior) should, theologically and pastorally, be understood and seen in respect to our relationship with our Bishop (Apostolic successor in leadership) and not between Priest and Deacon.
Comment
It becomes apparent that the historical and theological context of the Permanent Deacon, in the first 3 centuries, is indeed different to that of the transitory deacon, introduced in the forth century. The current view mentioned at the beginning of this article is therefore not accurate. It is in fact misleading. The two different contexts point to the order of Permanent Deacon being fundamentally different, ministerially and hierarchically, to the transitory deacon.
In respect to the Diaconate and the Presbyterate today, each order should show a fraternally mutual respect and love for each other in communion with their Bishop and indeed with the Holy Father. The image of the Holy Trinity comes to mind and the three fold clergy need to be a mirror image of this mystery. The bond of love and common purpose transcending all motives.
Please feel free to comment
Dcn. Greg
Current Understanding
The contemporary or common view point held today is that the Permanent and the Transitory Deacon are, ministerially and hierarchically, the same. One however remains (permanent) at a lower level of the Ecclessial hierarchy and the other (transitional) eventually progresses from that same lower level to the Priesthood, a higher level of the same hierarchy.
We proceed to analyse this understanding in the light of biblical, historical and theological sources in order to endorse the current view as true or to propose an alternative and more accurate view. We bear in mind that the correct understanding today of the restored order of Permanent Deacon must be "in complete continuity with ancient tradition" (Congregation for Catholic Education & Congregation for the Clergy).
First Century
The advent of the 7 proto-deacons as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is well known and the subsequent letters of Paul to Timothy and to the Philippians corroborate the institution of the Deacon as a stable, permanent ministry. Paul gives us an illustration, a snap shot as it were, of the clergy at that point in the life of the early Church (c.65). There are two distinct offices working with the Apostles; that of Episcopos (apostolic succession of leadership) and that of Diakonos (apostolic succession of servant ministers). According to the book of Acts, it is the Apostles who institute these offices to share in their work and for the continuity of the mission of Christ's Church, therefore the term 'apostolic successsion' is appropriate and relevant and can be applied to both ministers albeit with distinct mandates. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from Paul's letters that celibacy for clergy was not a rule or an issue at this time and the option for either way of life, i.e. married or celibate, was present to the clergy. A married man who met the criteria in time of need could become a Bishop or a Deacon. Towards the end of the first century, when Bishops ordained Priests to help them, Priests also had the options available to them. By the end of the first century both Deacon and Priest were the Bishop's helpers in his diocese.
Second Century
From the text of the Didache (teachings of the earliest Church Fathers) it is apparent that a theology of the clerical offices of Bishop, Deacon and Priest had developed. At the turn of the 1st century, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes "Let everyone revere the deacon as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the Apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church". He's theological teaching of the clergy gives us some insight into the thinking and understanding of the time. Both Bishop and Deacon have a direct link with the Apostles and therefore share in Apostolic succession: one in leadership (father) and the other in servant (son).
Third century
From the writings of the 3rd century, taken from the Didascallia, it is clear that the clerical orders of the Church continued to consist of 3 persons: the Bishop, the Deacon and the Priest. The aspect of stages or minor orders to ordination were not yet established. The Bishop, as in the first and second century, ordained men, married or single, who met the criteria, directly to their specific clerical order. Both Deacon and Priest therefore answered directly to their Bishop. The office of transitory deacon, like the minor orders mentioned, did not exist either. The minor orders referred to were for example; doorkeeper, lector, acolyte and sub-deacon.
The theology of the clergy developed in the late 1st and early 2nd century is carried over into the 3rd century. Again the direct relationship of the Bishop and Deacon to the Apostles is maintained. This theology, while sound in its logic based on Apostolic tradition, had an unexpected side effect. "The Didascallia (3rd century) evidences a degree of supremacy of deacons over the priests, since deacons are compared to Christ, while priests are only compared to the Apostles" (International Theological Commission).
Fourth century
In the first 3 centuries of the Church, celibacy had not become Church law. Bishops, Deacons and Priests could be married men as was the case with some of the Apostles such as Peter. Celibacy however did become an issue in the 4th century onward. The Council of Elvira (c. 305) brought out the first rule of celibacy for clergy. Although married Bishops, Deacons and Priests were still to be found throughout the 4th century, the die was cast and the process of conforming the clergy had begun. The Council of Carthage (c. 390) made it a requirement that married clergy abstain from sexual relations with their wives. During this century we also see a 'new' theology of the clergy developing in what appears to be an effort to break with the past theology and tradition. Theological propositions were developed to identify the clergy earlier than Christ. Deacons were identified with the Levites, Bishops and Priests with other old testament figures e.g. Moses and Aaron.
It is from this period of Church history that we see the movement towards celibacy of the clergy gaining momentum and which would have dire consequences for the order of Permanent Deacon.
During the third and fourth century there was also the contentious issue of hierarchical power and authority. As mentioned in the Didache and the Didascalia, the theology of the clergy that developed out of the 1st and early 2nd century led to the Permanent Deacons becoming very powerful figures in the Church, overshadowing the Priests. The synod of Arles (c. 314) and in particular the Council of Nicaea (c. 325), sought to 'clip' the wings of the Deacons who, in some instances arising from their 'senior' position, assumed functions that were proper to the Priests.
The 'Constitutiones Apostolorum', drawn up in the fourth century became a watershed document affecting the order of the Permanent Diaconate. It presented a prayer of ordination effectively introducing the office of the transitory deacon as the final stage before Priesthood. By virtue of this development the transitory deacon, unlike the Permanent Deacon, did not have a direct relationship with the Bishop due to the subordinate nature of the office within the hierarchy as well as its temporary state. It appears that the Permanent Deacon, in some way, was no longer fulfilling his role of servant, but aspired to preside and lead, resulting in the authentic ministry being somewhat neglected hence the institution of minor orders or stages to compensate for the 'lost' deacon. It also appears that the effort, more than 'clipping' wings, was to discontinue the order of Permanent Deacon and by so doing, rewrite the clerical orders. It must be remembered that the introduced minor orders or stages now formed the path to priesthood only, with such minor orders being the functions proper to the Permanent Deacon. The celibacy rule also meant that the order of Permanent Deacon became superflous. After all, why be an unmarried Permanent Deacon and face the hostility of the period, when the incentive was there for one to be a Priest who could potentially 'climb' the Ecclesial ladder?
Twentieth century
The key to a true understanding of the relationship between the Permanent and transitory Deacon lies in the restoration of the order of Permanent Deacon during the second Vatican Council. The order was restored "in complete continuity with ancient tradition" (Congregation for Catholic Education & Congregation for the Clergy). In this restoration the celibacy rule of the 4th century onward was effectively repealed for this particular clerical order. The restoration in "continuity with ancient tradition" has meant a search for the period and theological context which correctly places the Permanent Deacon. The correct ancient tradition must then link, through time, to the present.
Since the transitory deacon is, historically and theologically, a creation of the 4th century Church, irrespective of the circumstances, and remains to this day as the final stage to Priesthood, still bound by the rule of celibacy and a temporary subordinate of the Presbyterate, the Permanent Deacon, given its prior tradition, cannot take its lead from this period or from this office. Rather, the task is to identify the original Diaconate tradition which pre-dates the 4th century.
Apostolic tradition, that benchmark of Church tradition and, from that perspective, the most ancient tradition, not to be confused with the manuscript of Hippolytus "The Apostolic Tradition" (c. 215), should in fact be the starting or reference point for all clerical offices as befits the people of the Resurrection, the people of the new and everlasting covenant. Since the office of Deacon was, based on sacred scripture, established by the Apostles as their co-workers, togther with the Bishop and later, after the Apostles, became "the eyes, ears, heart and soul of the Bishop", this must, for the sake of objectivity, form the basis of our understanding of the Permanent Deacon today. From the information already mentioned in this article, the authentic theology of the Permanent Deacon is to be found in the earliest theology of the clergy at the turn of the 1st century. To ignore this truth would be most unfortunate and would immediatley compromise the identity, ministry and life of the Permanent Deacon and the vision of Vatican II in fidelity to Apostolic tradition.
The obvious pitfalls of the 3rd and 4th century need to be clearly understood if we are to avoid a repeat of that most unfortunate situation. The alleged abuse of power by the Permanent Deacons of this period must be a constructive lesson to Deacons today. We cannot but recognise in all honesty that ours is an Apostolic succession in humble service both inside and outside the Church. The historical tensions and friction with the Priests must be tactfully avoided in our time and a co-working relationship built. The distinction between superior and subordinate (senior and junior) should, theologically and pastorally, be understood and seen in respect to our relationship with our Bishop (Apostolic successor in leadership) and not between Priest and Deacon.
Comment
It becomes apparent that the historical and theological context of the Permanent Deacon, in the first 3 centuries, is indeed different to that of the transitory deacon, introduced in the forth century. The current view mentioned at the beginning of this article is therefore not accurate. It is in fact misleading. The two different contexts point to the order of Permanent Deacon being fundamentally different, ministerially and hierarchically, to the transitory deacon.
In respect to the Diaconate and the Presbyterate today, each order should show a fraternally mutual respect and love for each other in communion with their Bishop and indeed with the Holy Father. The image of the Holy Trinity comes to mind and the three fold clergy need to be a mirror image of this mystery. The bond of love and common purpose transcending all motives.
Please feel free to comment
Dcn. Greg
No comments:
Post a Comment