Is Presbyterial Succession Valid?
An EXTENSIVE list of quotations from throughout church history regarding Presbyterial ordination & the origins of the episcopate
Introduction
If you are a Lutheran or Reformed individual engaged in ecumenical discussions online, odds are that you’ve run across the issue of apostolic succession on more than one occasion.
Whether from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or even some Anglican1 interlocutors, odds are that you’ve heard it claimed that:
The tri-partite division between Bishops, Priests, and Deacons is apostolic and of divine institution (jure divino).
That it is only Bishops who have the ontological capability to ordain others into the priesthood.
That any Protestant orders which lack apostolic succession by way of the episcopate are invalid, and their members therefore lack the ability to carry out unique ministerial duties (such as consecrating the eucharist and ordaining others).
Protestants were the first to break with 1500 years of unanimous tradition by holding that Bishops and Presbyters are both able to ordain, but that the right to ordain was reserved for Bishops for the sake of good order in the church.
The topic of ordination is incredibly complex and a thorough treatment of it would require a multi-faceted approach.2 Our goal today is not to provide a comprehensive response to each of these claims, but instead to seek to answer the following related set of questions…
Are Protestants the first in church history to suggest that, in the primitive Church, there was no difference between “presbyters” and “bishops”?
Are Protestants the first in church history to suggest that the difference between “Bishop” (i.e. - episkopos; ἐπίσκοπος) and “Presbyter” (i.e. - presbyteros; πρεσβύτερος) is not ontological and according to jure divino, but is instead honor-based, for the sake of good order, and according to jure humano?3
Are Protestants the first in church history to suggest that regular presbyters have the ability to ordain?4
In seeking to answer these questions, I have here collated, in alphabetical order, a selection of quotes down through the ages of Church History which speak to the topic at hand. You will see that different quotes speak to different elements relevant to the questions listed above, even if each one does not single-handedly answer every question.
That being said, I want to give credit where credit is due: most of the quotes in this article were not originally gathered by me, and are the work of Reformed YouTuber @WesternCatholike, who graciously forwarded them to me so that I could compile them for your own viewing pleasure and further research efforts.
So, with that in mind, let’s dive in!
*Note: As always, please make sure to check out the various footnotes throughout this article! In them, you can find added notes, context, and more.
Patristic Quotes & Testimonies
AMBROSIASTER (4TH CENTURY AD)
“After the bishop, subjoins the ordination of the deacon ; why? unless the ordination of the bishop and of the presbyter is one, for each of them is a priest. But the bishop is first, seeing every bishop is a presbyter, not every presbyter a bishop ; for he is a bishop, who is first among the presbyters. Finally, he represents Timothy to have been ordained a presbyter, but because he had not another before him, he was a bishop. Whence, also, he shows, that he may, after the like manner, ordain a bishop. For it was neither right nor lawful, that an inferior should ordain a superior, for no one confers what he has not received.”
- Ambrosiaster, Commentary 1 Timothy 3, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/325/2/5
“The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the [episcopal] hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops because when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent. But because the presbyters who followed begun to be found unworthy to hold primacies, upon some reflection the rule was changed: a merit, not a rank, should made one a bishop by a judgement of many priests [𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑡𝑢𝑚 𝑖𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑚] so that no one unworthy usurp daringly and scandalize many.”5
- Ambrosiaster Commentary on Ephesians 4:12.
“The presbyter is understood to be the bishop, as Paul the apostle proves, when he instructs concerning Timothy, whom he ordained as a presbyter, indicating what kind of person one should appoint as bishop. For what is a bishop but a pre-eminent presbyter, that is, the highest priest? Indeed, he does not call them anything other than fellow presbyters and fellow priests; does he also call them deacons, ministers? Certainly not, because they are much inferior, and it is shameful to pronounce judgment on the elders. For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is lacking, the presbyter assumes the duty.”
- Ambrosiaster (Pseudo-Augustine), Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testament.
CLEMENT OF ROME (?-100 AD)
*Important Note: 6
“Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.”
- Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_rome/first_epistle_to_the_corinthians/anf01.ii.ii.i.html
“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’ [...] Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”
- Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 42 & Chapter 44, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_rome/first_epistle_to_the_corinthians/anf01.ii.ii.xlii.html
“It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.”
- Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 47, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_rome/first_epistle_to_the_corinthians/anf01.ii.ii.xlvii.html
“Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare, ‘If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.’ He that acts thus shall procure to himself great glory in the Lord; and every place will welcome him. For ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.’ These things they who live a godly life, that is never to be repented of, both have done and always will do.”
- Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 54, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_rome/first_epistle_to_the_corinthians/anf01.ii.ii.liv.html
“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that ye should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people.”
- Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 57, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_rome/first_epistle_to_the_corinthians/anf01.ii.ii.lvii.html
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE (560-636 AD)
“Whence, among the ancients, bishops and priests (presbyter) were the same, for the former name is associated with rank, the latter with seniority.”
- Isidore of Seville, Etymologie.
“CHAPTER VI. Concerning Chorepiscopi.
1. Chorepiscopi, that is, the vicars of bishops, as the canons themselves testify, were established in the likeness of the seventy elders, as fellow priests for the care of the poor. These, established in villages and towns, govern the churches entrusted to them, having the authority to appoint lectors, subdeacons, exorcists, and acolytes. However, they do not dare to ordain presbyters or deacons without the consent of the bishop to whom they are subject in that region. These [chorepiscopi] are ordained by the bishop of the city to which they are adjacent.”7
- Isidore, SANCTI ISIDORI HISPALENSIS EPISCOPI DE ECCLESIASTICIS OFFICIIS, Book II, Chapter VII, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/6029/2/4/9
“CHAPTER VII. Concerning Presbyters.
1. The order of presbyters originated (as has been said) from the sons of Aaron. For those who were called priests in the Old Testament are now called presbyters, and those who were named chief priests are now called bishops. Presbyters are interpreted as ‘elders,’ because the Greeks call those older in age ‘presbyters.’ For to them, as to bishops, the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted. 2. They preside over the Church of Christ and share with the bishops in the preparation of the divine body and blood, as well as in the teaching of the people and in the duty of preaching. But the ordination and consecration of clerics have been reserved solely for the high priest, so that the discipline of the Church, being claimed by many, does not disrupt harmony or generate scandals. For the Apostle Paul affirms that these same presbyters, as true priests, are included under the name of bishops, speaking to Titus: ‘For this reason, I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint presbyters in every city, as I commanded you. If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless’ (Titus 1). By this statement, he shows that presbyters are also classified under the name of bishops. 3. Hence, in writing to Timothy about the ordination of bishops and deacons (1 Tim. 3), he says nothing explicitly about presbyters, because he includes them under the name of bishops. The second rank is closely joined to the first, as he writes to the Philippians concerning bishops and deacons (Phil. 1), even though a single city cannot have multiple bishops. And in the Acts of the Apostles, he summoned the presbyters of the Church before heading to Jerusalem, and said among other things: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (Acts 20). Hence, the Apostle speaks to Titus, and the canons themselves testify that such presbyters should be established in the Church as bishops.”
- Isidore of Seville, SANCTI ISIDORI HISPALENSIS EPISCOPI DE ECCLESIASTICIS OFFICIIS, Book II, Chapter VIII, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/6029/2/4/9
“CHAPTER 11. To the sole authority, etc. It is found in Isidore: But the ordination of clerics is reserved solely to the high priest due to his authority, etc.”8
- Notes on the Decree of Ivonis, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/1531/2?byte=28341&byte=28345&byte=28350&byte=28358
JEROME OF STRIDON (342-420 AD)
“Priests (who administer baptism, invoke the presence of the Lord during the Eucharist, consecrate the oil of chrism, lay hands, instruct catechumens, and ordain deacons and other priests) should not be so offended by us explaining these things and by the prophets proclaiming them, but rather should beseech the Lord and diligently strive not to be counted among those priests who desecrate the holy things of the Lord.”
- Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Zephaniah, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/5604/2
“Therefore as the presbyters know that they are subject to the one who has been placed over them by an ecclesiastical custom, the bishops should know that they are greater than the presbyters more through custom than through the verity of an ordinance of the Lord and that they all ought to rule the church in common.”
- Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Titus 1:5.
“The presbyter accordingly is the same as a bishop....But because at that time the same persons were called bishops and presbyters, so he speaks on that account without distinction about bishops as he does about priests.”
- Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Titus 1:5.
“We read in Isaiah the words, the fool will speak folly, and I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows (Acts 6:1-2) be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons. Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God (Titus 1:5-7). And to Timothy he says: Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14). Peter also says in his first epistle: The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ. ..taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God. In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is επισκοποῦντες, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, (Mark 3:17) the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23) and who reclining on the Saviour's breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth; and another thus: The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gaius whom I love in the truth. When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.”
- Jerome of Stridon, Letter 146 to Evangelus, link: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/jerome_letter_146_ad_evangelum.htm
JOHN CASSIAN (360-435 AD)
“Among the other heroes of Christian philosophy we also knew Abbot Daniel, who was not only the equal of those who dwelt in the desert of Scete in every sort of virtue, but was specially marked by the grace of humility. This man on account of his purity and gentleness, though in age the junior of most, was preferred to the office of the diaconate by the blessed Paphnutius, presbyter in the same desert: for the blessed Paphnutius was so delighted with his excellent qualities, that, as he knew that he was his equal in virtue and grace of life, he was anxious also to make him his equal in the order of the priesthood. And since he could not bear that he should remain any longer in an inferior office, and was also anxious to provide a worthy successor to himself in his lifetime, he promoted him to the dignity of the priesthood.”
- John Cassian, Conferences IV.I
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS (C. 60-130 AD)
“As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, ‘In my Father’s house are many mansions:’ for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father.”9
- Papias of Hierapolis, Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Fragment V, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.v.html
POLYCARP (69-155 AD)
“Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied. [...] Let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always “providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man;” abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin.”10
- Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Introduction & Chapter VI, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/polycarp/epistle_to_the_philippians/anf01.iv.ii.html
“Knowing, then, that “God is not mocked,” we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. [...] Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things [i.e.- the lusts and other sins mentioned above], being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ.”11
- Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter V, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/polycarp/epistle_to_the_philippians/anf01.iv.ii.v.html
SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH (465-538 AD)
“And the bishop also of the city renowned for its orthodox faith, the city of the Alexandrines, used in former days to be appointed by presbyters; but in later times in accordance with the canon which has prevailed everywhere the solemn institution of their bishop has come to be performed by the hand of bishops, and no one contemns the strictness which prevails in the holy churches and has recourse to the former practices, which have yielded to the later clear, strict, approved, and spiritual ordinance.”
- Severus of Antioch, Ninety-third Letter of the Second Book of Letters Written After Banishment, link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23949315?seq=112
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1ST CENTURY)
“And afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The aged woman came, and asked me, if I had already given the book to the elders. I said that I had not given it. ‘Thou hast done well,’ she said, ‘for I have words to add. When then I shall have finished all the words, it shall be made known by thy means to all the elect. Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church.’”
- Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/fathers.ii.xiv.html
“The third vision, which I saw, brethren, was as follows. [...] I enquired of her, saying, ‘Lady, I could wish to know concerning the end of the stones, and their power, of what kind it is.’ She answered and said unto me, ‘[...] Hear now concerning the stones that go to the building The stones that are squared and white, and that fit together in their joints, these are the apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons, who walked after the holiness of God, and exercised their office of bishop and teacher and deacon in purity and sanctity for the elect of God, some of them already fallen on sleep, and others still living. And because they always agreed with one another, they both had peace among themselves and listened one to another. Therefore their joinings fit together in the building of the tower.’”
- Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/fathers.ii.xiv.html
“And from the tenth mountain, where were trees sheltering certain sheep, they that believed are such as these; bishops, hospitable persons, who gladly received into their houses at all times the servants of God without hypocrisy. [These bishops] at all times without ceasing sheltered the needy and the widows in their ministration and conducted themselves in purity at all times. These [all] then shall be sheltered by the Lord for ever. They therefore that have done these things are glorious in the sight of God, and their place is even now with the angels, if they shall continue unto the end serving the Lord.”
- Shepherd of Hermas, Parable 9, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/fathers.ii.xiv.html
Medieval Quotes & Testimonies
*Important Notes: 16
ALTFRID OF HILDESHEIM (9th CENTURY AD)
“And so, as was his custom, with great zeal and care, he labored to benefit the unlearned Saxon people through teaching. Uprooting the thorns of idolatry, he diligently sowed the word of God in every place, built churches, and in them ordained individual priests whom he himself had raised up as co-workers in the word of God. Therefore, he longed to assist many peoples through his evangelizing efforts, yet he humbly sought to avoid episcopal rank. For this reason, he frequently asked his disciples that one of them might take on the episcopal office in his place.
When Bishop Hildibald urged him that he ought to be ordained bishop, he replied with the apostolic saying: ‘A bishop must be irreproachable.’ But, being humble and a dear friend of God, he said with a sigh that this had not been fulfilled in him. At last, overwhelmed by the agreement of all—and more so compelled by God’s will—he consented, lest he be seen as resisting not only the counsel of many, but indeed the will of God.”17 18
- Altfrid of Hildesheim, Life of St. Liudgeri (Vita sancti Liudgeri).
ANGELUS DE CLAVASIO (1411-1495 AD)
“It is determined that the Pope can grant permission to a bishop to confer sacred orders. Innocent, in the chapter _Quanto_ on the custom of office, states that this is so, provided that the one to whom such permission is given already possesses those orders that he wishes to confer on another; otherwise, not.”
- Angelus de Clavasio, Summa, On the Word Ordo, Art. II, Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=zCFNAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Dtrupapa%20poflit&f=false
ANTONIO ROSELLI (1380-1466 AD)
“Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordaine indifferently; and there arose schismes. Peter, with other Apostles, restrained the power of the Character. so that Presbyters might not indifferently confer all Sacraments: but they reserved some to those whom they created in Cities and Provinces; whom they called Bishops. The Presbyteriall power was restrained, and the office of the Character: so that certaine things were reserved only to Bishops; as Confirmation and Collation of Orders. Whereupon when a Bishop is consocrated, that restraint of Priestly Character is set at liberty: the Sacraments which were forbidden the Priestly order, and yet formerly belonging to the Priestly Order, are enlarged. Wherefore by the consecration of a Bishop, there is not made the impression of a new Character, but only the perfection of the Priestly character.”
- Antonio Roselli, Tractatus de potestate imperatoris ac pape. 32, Link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Tractatus_de_potestate_imperatoris_ac_pa.html?id=nRzOkQyM2pgC
“One who himself has received [orders] and is a priest can ordain priests and deacons by the precept or mandate of the Pope.”
- Antonio Roselli, Tractatus de potestate imperatoris ac pape. 75.
“I hold, that the Pope may give commission to Presbyters to conferre all sacred orders: and in this I stand with the opinion of the Canonists.”
- Antonio Roselli, Tractatus de potestate imperatoris ac pape. 76.
ANSELM OF CANTERBURY (1033-1109 AD)
“He writes to all the saints who are in Philippi, that is, to all the faithful, along with the bishops and deacons, that is, with the lesser and greater leaders. Bishops here refer to presbyters, according to his custom. There were not several bishops in one city, nor did he omit presbyters to descend to the mention of deacons. But he clarifies the dignity and excellence of presbyters by manifesting that those who are presbyters are also bishops. However, later, one was chosen to be set over the others as a remedy against schism, lest anyone should draw followers to himself and thus destroy the Gospel of Christ. For even in Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist until Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops were presbyters who were chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher position and rank, being called bishops. Just as an army appoints a commander or the deacons select one from among themselves whom they know to be industrious and call him archdeacon, it is evident, therefore, that by apostolic institution all presbyters are bishops, although now the greater presbyters hold this name. ‘Bishop’ indeed means ‘overseer,’ and every presbyter ought to have care over the flock entrusted to him.”
- Anselm, Commentary on Philippians, Chapter 1, Verse 1.
“But after each one began to think that those he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the world that one of the presbyters, elected, should be placed over the others, to whom the care of the whole church should belong and to remove the seeds of schism. For it is also written elsewhere: ‘Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.’ Philippi is a city in Macedonia, and certainly, in one city, there could not be multiple bishops. But since at that time they called those bishops who were later called presbyters, Paul spoke indifferently about bishops as if they were presbyters. And in the Acts of the Apostles, he says to the priests of one church: ‘Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops.’ We have said this to show that in ancient times, presbyters were the same as bishops. However, gradually, to root out the seeds of dissension, all responsibility was entrusted to one person. Therefore, just as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church, they are subject to the one who has been placed over them, so too bishops should understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's arrangement, and that they should govern the church in common, imitating Moses, who, although he had the power to lead the people of Israel alone, chose seventy elders with whom he judged the people.’”
- Anselm, Commentary on Titus, Chapter 1, Verse 1.
ANSELM OF LAON (1050-1117 AD)
“So then, as I said, both the Presbyters were of old called Bishops and Deacons of Christ, and the Bishops Presbyters; and hence even now many Bishops write, To my fellow-Presbyter, and, To my fellow-Deacon. But otherwise the specific name is distinctly appropriated to each, the Bishop and the Presbyter. To the fellow-Bishops, he says, and Deacons.”19
- Anselm of Laon, Homily 1 on Philippians, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230201.htm
ANSGAR ABP. OF HAMBURG (801-865 AD)
“After this, the most glorious king of the Franks, Charles (Charlemagne), who had already labored many times among the Saxons to convert them to the Christian faith—though they often rebelled with stubborn hearts and returned to their former errors—heard of the reputation of the man of God (Willehad), and ordered that he be quickly brought to him. When Willehad came, Charles received him with honor and reverence. Recognizing his proven sanctity, steadfastness of faith, and genuine constancy, he sent him into the region of Saxony, to a place called Wigmodia, to begin founding churches daily under royal authority and to teach the people the doctrine of sacred preaching, so that he might open to them the path of eternal salvation.
This ministry, which Willehad received with devotion, he diligently fulfilled, evangelizing many in the surrounding diocese and converting them to the faith of Christ. By the second year, both Saxons and Frisians dwelling in the surrounding regions had all alike professed the Christian faith. This occurred in the year of our Lord’s Incarnation 781, in the 14th year of King Charles’s reign, although he had not yet been elevated to imperial rank.
Later, the king was consecrated emperor in Rome by the hands of the most reverend apostolic Leo, in the 34th year of his reign. The Church, venerating Christ throughout Catholic Europe, received him with honor and joy. Indeed, the imperial power, which had resided since the time of the most devout emperor Constantine in Constantinople among the Greeks, was at that time transferred to the dominion of the Franks—since, with no royal heirs remaining there, women had begun to administer the empire. Thus, the Roman people, with the highest authority of bishops, placed the imperial title upon Charles, because he ruled the lands more justly and seemed to be governing many provinces for God. Hence he was called by the title of imperial majesty.
During this time of his reign, the servant of God, Willehad, traveled throughout the territory of Wigmodia, ordaining priests over various districts, so that they might preach the message of salvation to the free peoples and confer the grace of baptism.
[…]
After this, the venerable priest of the Lord, Willehad, again approached King Charles, who was then staying in a fortress in Saxony called Eresburh. Willehad expressed the most devout desire of his will to prepare the gospel of peace, and sought the king’s most just command in this matter. To console his labors and support his ongoing ministry, Charles granted him a certain cell in Francia as a benefice, called Iustina, and instructed him to return again to the parish he had begun for the name of Christ.
Willehad received this order gratefully and devoutly, and returned once again to Wigmodia, where he publicly and energetically preached the faith of the Lord to the peoples. He also restored destroyed churches and appointed approved men to lead in each locality, that they might offer the people guidance in salvation. And thus, in that very year, under divine direction, the Saxon people once again received the Christian faith they had previously rejected. Even Widukind, the unrepentant instigator of all that evil, submitted to King Charles in that same year and was baptized, receiving the grace of consecration. So the evils brought about by his rebellion were, for a time, calmed.
Later, when all seemed peaceful, and the fierceness of the Saxons—though previously subdued by force—had begun to yield under the gentle yoke of Christ, the aforementioned most noble prince, then residing in the city of Worms, had the servant of God Willehad consecrated bishop on the third day before the Ides of July. He appointed him as pastor and overseer over Wigmodia, as well as over Laras, Rüstringen, Asterga, Nordendi, and Wanga. There, with episcopal authority, he was to govern the people and continue—as he had already begun—to assist them with sound teaching and excellent works, acting as a vigilant shepherd.
Thus Willehad became the first to hold episcopal office in that diocese. This had previously been delayed for some time, since the people, resisting divine faith, had scarcely permitted priests to remain among them, even under compulsion; as a result, ecclesiastical authority was initially placed under the control of the king. For this reason, Willehad had already remained for seven years as a presbyter in that parish, being called a bishop, and exercising all the power of governance that he could. But once he received episcopal consecration, he began to act with even greater devotion in all things, multiplying and increasing the works of virtue he had previously practiced.”20 21
- Ansgar of Hamburg, Section 5 and 8 of The Life of St. Willehad (Vita Sancti Willehadi).22
BARTHOLOMEW OF BRESCIA (1200-1258 AD)
“Now Gratian repeats concerning the dignity of priests. Thus, the case is as follows. Jerome shows below in this chapter that originally a priest was the same as a bishop, and the churches were governed by their common counsel. But later, when a schism arose, and one would say, ‘I am of Paul; I am of Cephas; I am of Apollos,’ as if implying superiority because one was baptized by a superior, it was therefore decreed that one of the priests would preside over all. Just as, therefore, a priest is made subject to bishops by this constitution, so also should it be that bishops do not prefer to enact anything without the consent of the priests, nor should they govern churches without it.”
- Bartholomew of Brescia, Glossa ordinaria, Distinction XCV, link: https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/zz0014rx6c?cv=369
BERNARD OF PARMA (?-1263 AD)
“However, by the Pope's command, anyone can confer what they have. So, someone who is ordained can confer the order they have, and someone who is confirmed can confer confirmation. [This is stated in the next distinction.] There's no other reason for this. Otherwise, no, as noted in 1, question 1, Gratia, and question 7, Daibertum. So, note that when the conferral of a sacrament belongs to someone by virtue of their rank and office, even someone prohibited can confer it, as stated in 9, question 1, Ordinations. In question 1, some say that when it involves the support of the order and a command, and in the case of confirmation on a priest's forehead or the conferral of order, it does not belong to bishops. This is established in distinction 95 and 69, chapter 1. In that case, someone prohibited accomplishes nothing, as noted here in chapter 'Manus.'” 23
- Bernard of Parma, Glossa ordinaria (1263) De Consecratione, Distinction V, Irritum, Page 88. https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/zz0014rx7w?cv=71
BERNOLDUS CONSTANTIENSIS (1054-1100 AD)
“[ON THE OFFICE OF PRESBYTERS - THE OCCASION AND PURPOSE OF THIS WORK:] To the lords and most beloved brothers in Christ at Reitenboch, faithfully following the apostolic way of life, from B., presbyter only in name, not in conduct, after the legitimate struggle of this life, eternal fellowship in apostolic blessedness. I. The letters of your love recently reached us, in which you reported that a certain question had arisen among you regarding the authority of presbyters, which you presented to our weakness to resolve. You indicated that you were seeking our opinion on this matter, or rather, through us, the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Although the weakness of mind and body may resist fulfilling this task, charity nevertheless compels us not to neglect fulfilling fraternal requests, even beyond our strength. Therefore, with that charity which is God helping your fraternity, we will attempt to obey: not only by addressing what you ask, namely, from where presbyters have the authority to receive penitents, but also by adding other points that you did not inquire about, namely, what presbyters were in ancient times and by what privilege they later deserved to be restricted. May God, who is charity and omnipotent, always protect and guard you, beloved lords, brothers, and most loving Fathers, and keep you mindful of us. [BEGINNING OF A DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFICE OF PRESBYTERS:] II. B. The Apostle Paul in his epistles most clearly prescribes to us that among the ancients, presbyter and bishop were the same. For when writing to Titus about the ordination of bishops, he commands that presbyters be appointed in every city; and immediately he adds what kind of men should be ordained, saying: "For a bishop must be blameless" (Titus 1:7). Likewise, he writes to Timothy: "Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of hands by the presbytery" (1 Timothy 4:14). In the following verses, he says: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Timothy 5:22), which is specifically the duty of a bishop. In these words, the Apostle clearly noted that in ancient times, presbyter and bishop were the same, as both Blessed Ambrose and Jerome have commented on the same apostolic teachings. Likewise, in the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul greets the presbyters under the name of bishops, saying: "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1). For according to Jerome, Philippi is a city in Macedonia that could not have had multiple bishops. It is also read in the Acts of the Apostles that the apostles called the presbyters of Ephesus, whom the Holy Spirit had appointed as bishops (Acts 20:28), clearly referring to the presbyters of one city as bishops. Likewise, the chief of the apostles, Peter, says in his epistle: "The presbyters among you I exhort, as a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (1 Peter 5:1). Likewise, the Apostle John, in writing from his own perspective, says: "The presbyter to the elect lady and her children" (2 John 1:1). Similarly, in another epistle: "The presbyter to the beloved Gaius" (3 John 1:1). III. From these statements, attested by Blessed Jerome and Ambrose, it is most clearly proven that presbyter and bishop were the same. But why did they later begin to differ both in name and in office, so that among the presbyters, one especially held the title of bishop? Jerome explains this clearly in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus: "After everyone began to think that those whom they baptized were their own and not Christ's, it was decreed throughout the world that one of the presbyters should be elected and set over the others, to whom all the care of the Church would pertain, and that the seeds of schisms should be removed" (Commentary on Titus 1). And further: "Gradually, as the plants of dissension were uprooted, all care was assigned to one person. Therefore, just as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church, they are subject to the one who is set over them, so bishops should know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the arrangement of the Lord's truth, and that they should govern the Church together, imitating Moses, who, although he had the power to rule the people of Israel alone, chose seventy others with whom he judged the people." IV. Since it is therefore recorded that presbyters and bishops were the same in ancient times, it is also certain that they had the same power to bind and loose, and other functions now specific to bishops. But after presbyters were restricted from episcopal excellence, they began to be forbidden from what was previously allowed to them, namely, what ecclesiastical authority delegated exclusively to bishops to perform: the consecration of chrism, the consecration of virgins, the reconciliation of penitents, and other such functions which the decrees of the Fathers prohibit for them. For the Council of Carthage, in which Blessed Augustine participated, chapter 6, prohibits presbyters from consecrating chrism, reconciling penitents, and consecrating virgins. Likewise, Saint Eusebius, in his decrees, asserts that the confirmation of neophytes can and should be performed only by bishops, and that it is not considered a legitimate ecclesiastical sacrament if performed by others. V. But concerning each of these things, which presbyters began to be forbidden from doing after they were separated from episcopal excellence, Blessed Pope Damasus explains more fully in his decrees, where he restrained the vain superstition of the chorepiscopi with authentic reasoning. For in writing to all bishops (epistle 5; LABB. vol. II, p. 876), he first proves that chorepiscopi are nothing more than presbyters. Then he separates both from episcopal dignity in this manner: "It is not permitted," he says, "for chorepiscopi to consecrate priests, nor deacons, nor subdeacons, nor virgins; nor to erect altars, nor to anoint or consecrate them, nor to dedicate churches, nor to prepare chrism, nor to sign baptismal fonts with chrism, nor even to reconcile any penitent publicly in the Mass; nor to send formal letters, nor to bless the people, nor to enter the baptistery or sacristy before the bishop, nor to baptize or sign an infant in the bishop's presence, nor to reconcile a penitent without the bishop's command, nor to consecrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in the bishop’s presence unless commanded, nor to teach or greet the people in the bishop’s presence, nor to exhort the congregation." All these things belong solely to bishops, as you have been taught both from the higher authorities and from other statutes of the Fathers and sacred canons. Likewise, the same applies to presbyters, that they should not do anything of their own accord without the bishop’s command. Saint Pope Leo I, in writing to all bishops (epistle 88; LABB., vol. III, p. 1394), upheld the same opinion regarding chorepiscopi and presbyters, that both should recognize their proper status and not presume to usurp episcopal privilege. Moreover, Blessed Pope Gelasius, in his decrees, chapter 6 (LABB., vol. IV, p. 1189), enumerated the things belonging to the office of presbyters and added a general statement, saying: "A presbyter should not doubt that if he presumes to undertake anything that specifically pertains to the episcopal ministry on his own initiative, he should immediately be deprived of the dignity of the presbyterate and sacred communion." It is therefore quite clear how much episcopal authority surpasses that of presbyters and what they are completely forbidden to usurp. VI. However, there are still some things that can be granted to presbyters by episcopal authority, such as the private reconciliation of penitents, for they are entirely prohibited from public reconciliation as well as from preparing chrism. They can indeed reconcile penitents who have confessed privately and absolve and communicate the sick, but only if the bishop orders it, as Pope Saint Evaristus, martyr, states in his decrees (cause 26, question 6, chapter 4), decreeing that presbyters should reconcile penitents for hidden sins and absolve and communicate the sick by the bishop’s command. Similarly, the Council of Carthage (LABB., vol. II, p. 1160), chapter 7 [read chapter 4], says that those in danger may be reconciled by a presbyter in the absence of the bishop, but only by the bishop’s command. VII. It is also to be noted that presbyters are not permitted to perform even this private reconciliation unless they have a specific command from the bishop. Even the presbyters of the Holy Roman Church do not usually perform this unless they are permitted to do so; nor does the Roman pontiff grant this to all those he ordains, but only to certain ones whom he considers suitable for this task. Blessed Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, likewise granted permission to only a few presbyters in his diocese to receive penitents, even though he ordained many presbyters in various places. Other bishops in their dioceses have also done this up to the present, being more diligent observers of the canons. VIII. It therefore seems quite evident that presbyters do not reconcile penitents by virtue of their own consecration, but rather by the bishop’s concession. For if they had this authority by their own consecration like bishops, since they receive the same consecration as presbyters, they would all have the same power of reconciliation; and they would no more require the bishop’s command for this than they would for performing the Mass, if they had received this power at the time of their consecration. However, it is easy for anyone to see that they did not receive this power at their consecration if they carefully consider the manner of their consecration, in which they do not receive the power to bind and loose as bishops do, but only the power to offer sacrifice both for the living and the dead. IX. Parish presbyters, to whom pastoral care of the people is entrusted by the bishop, are also granted the right to receive penitents in the same commission, as this primarily pertains to that care. However, those who have not been given such care after their consecration should not presume to exercise this power unless the bishop grants it to them. If they do presume, they bind themselves by their presumption rather than absolving penitents by their reconciliation; however, those who act out of simple ignorance and not presumptuously are not accused of presumption. Bishops often grant the right to reconcile to priests without pastoral care, as venerable Pope Gregory VII and Saint Anselm of Lucca did for many, and many still do today. We ourselves received this concession at our ordination; we know that many others received it from their ordaining bishops as well. X. Nevertheless, it should be understood that Blessed Jerome attributes the power to bind and loose equally to both presbyters and bishops in his commentary on Matthew, where he explains: "Whatever you bind" (Matthew 16:19), and so forth. He says (Opp. vol. IV, p. 75), "This passage is misunderstood by bishops and presbyters alike, who take upon themselves something of the Pharisees’ arrogance, condemning the innocent or releasing the guilty, when before God it is not the sentence of the priests that is sought, but their lives. We read in Leviticus about lepers, where they are commanded to show themselves to the priests, and if they have leprosy, they are to be declared unclean by the priest (Leviticus 14); not because the priests make them leprous or unclean, but because they have knowledge of who is leprous and who is not and can discern who is clean and who is unclean. Just as the priest makes a leper unclean there, so too here the bishop and presbyter bind and loose, not those who are innocent or guiltless, but according to their office, when they hear the variety of sins, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed." Likewise, Jerome says to Heliodorus (epistle 5, Opp., vol. IV, p. II, p. 10): "It is not permitted for me to sit before a presbyter; if I sin, it is permitted for him to hand me over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." However, these statements do not contradict the previous ones, which also attribute such power to presbyters regarding penitents, not as bishops by their consecration, but by the command of bishops, as the canons prescribe. Blessed Jerome did not explicitly state where they obtained this power, but only noted that they simply possess it. Moreover, even if he had said that they received this power through consecration in the manner of bishops, we would not presume to contradict canonical sanctions, though we would still respect his authority. XI. Blessed Pope Gregory, writing to Januarius, Bishop of Cagliari (book IV, epistle 26), allowed certain presbyters to confirm neophytes, which he certainly knew was completely outside the office of presbyters. He said: "It has come to our attention that some have been scandalized because we prohibited presbyters from touching with chrism those who have been baptized. We did this according to the ancient practice of our Church. But if this matter greatly distresses some, we grant that where there are no bishops, presbyters may touch the baptized with chrism even on the forehead." We do not doubt that these confirmations were valid, since those presbyters did them by apostolic concession, not by their own presumption; if they had done it presumptuously, according to the aforementioned decree of Pope Saint Eusebius, they would have been utterly invalid. XII. We should not presume to assign to presbyters the power to bless the people, which Saint Jerome attributes to them in his letter to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne, because doing so would contradict Blessed Pope Damasus and the sacred canons, which explicitly prohibit this. It seems safer to say that presbyters possess this power by some episcopal concession rather than by the nature of their office, just as subdeacons are believed to have the power to read the Epistle at Mass, even though they do not appear to receive this by their consecration. The custom of presbyters blessing the people has become so widespread in the Church that it is believed to be propagated not without episcopal concession, and considerable scandal might arise if presbyters were now to cease this practice.” 24
- Bernaldus Constantiensis, DE OFFICIO PRESBYTERUM, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1050-1100__Bernaldus_Constantiensis__De_Presbyterum_Officio_Tractatus__MLT.pdf.html
CARDINAL S. MARCI
“As for the others whom you silently exclude, consider what you are doing. You expel and drive away all priests who are not among your prelates, yet the priestly order is a primary order in the Church of God, among whom one is supreme, that is, the Pope, and the rest are priests who, even if they are simple, should not be disparaged; rather, the priestly office in them should be honored. About them, it is written in the law: 'You shall not revile the gods,' referring to priests, who, due to the excellence of their order and the dignity of their office, are called gods. Yet you reject them. However, you admit bishops, among whom even the most humble; the Apostle makes no distinction between bishops and presbyters regarding ordination and merit. He teaches that a bishop should be equal and specifies who should be ordained as a bishop, but he says nothing about a presbyter and moves on to the deacon, implying that, according to the preface, the same qualities are required in a presbyter and a bishop, and that their order and dignity are the same, even though in these times the multitude has made them contemptible. Bishops are rarer and therefore more valuable, just as pennyroyal is more precious than pepper among the Jews, and they are the rectors of parish churches, who are also called prelates of the churches in law. Since the Church is established with various orders and offices, why do you reject these orders and offices?”
- Cardinal S. Marci (William Filastre), At Council of Constance, link: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dInWK1cgSvgC&pg=GBS.PA227&hl=fi
COLLECTION OF CANONS
“That the persons to be promoted should be diligently searched, and that the priests should always recite the names of the apostles. That presbyters are greater than deacons, and that in ancient times a presbyter was the same as a bishop.”25 26
- Collection of Canons, Book VII, Canon 86, Patrologia latina, vol. 149. J. P. Migne, ed. Parisiis: excudebat Migne, 1853, Link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/476/2/
“Canon 17. VII. A presbyter is a Missal priest, or a 'senior,' not because of old age, but because he enjoys the prudence of an elder. It is his duty to consecrate the body of the Lord in the sacrament, in the same manner as the Savior himself instituted. It is his role to lead the people to faith, both by preaching and by chastely performing sacred ministries, providing an example to Christians, and living a life not according to the custom of laypeople. There is no greater difference between a Missal priest and a bishop than that a bishop is appointed to confer ordinations and to visit or inspect and take care of matters pertaining to God (God's rights), which would be considered too much for a multitude if every priest did the same. Both indeed hold one and the same order, although the office of the bishop is more dignified.”
- Canon 17, Ælfrici Canones ad Wulsinum Episcopum.
CHURCH COUNCILS
“But the ordination and consecration of clerics have been reserved solely for the high priest, so that the discipline of the Church, being claimed by many, does not disrupt harmony or generate scandals.”
- Council of Aachen (816 AD), Canon 8.
“Presbyters, who bear the figure of the sons of Aaron, do not presume to usurp. For although many aspects of ministry are held in common with bishops, they know that some things are forbidden to them by the authority of the old law, others by the new regulations and statutes of the Church; for instance, the consecration of presbyters, deacons, and virgins; the establishment, blessing, or anointing of an altar; and it is not permitted for them to bless the Church or consecrate altars; nor may they bless the faithful through the laying on of hands, or bestow the Holy Spirit upon them; nor to anoint with chrism, nor to anoint the foreheads of the baptized with chrism; nor may they publicly promise reconciliation in Masses, nor send Eucharistic letters. All these things are prohibited to them alone, because the pinnacle of the pontificate, which it possesses and which belongs solely to bishops, is distributed by the authority of the Canons, according to the Spirit, in itself, and clearly in the hierarchy of degrees and dignity, solely confirming the status of the pontiff. Nor is it permitted for them to enter the baptistery in the presence of a bishop; nor to clasp their hands in prayer without the express reconciliation of their bishop; nor to consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; nor, in the presence of the people, to bless or give salutations together with the presbyter; all of which is everywhere prohibited. All these things are known to be prohibited by Apostolic faith.”
- Second Council of Seville, Caput VII.
DUNS SCOTUS (1265-1308 AD)
“27. There can be two other probable ways of speaking:
One is this, that in the primitive Church there was no difference between priests and bishops.
28. This is proved through two authorities from Jerome, which are set down in Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.95 ch.5.
a. First Authority and the Weighing of It
29. The first of these is in the chapter ‘Once’ (the second in the following chapter [n.37]), and it is titled ‘Jerome, On the Epistle to Titus [1.5]’: “Once,” he says, “the priest was the same as he who was bishop: they [sc. the faithful] were ruled by the common council of the priests of the Church until, by a diabolical instinct, passions arose and it was said in their meals [I Corinthians 1.12, cf. also 1.11, 31; 3.3; 5.8], ‘I am of Paul, and I of Apollos’. But after each thought those whom he was baptizing to be his own and not Christ’s, a decree in the whole world was made so that one of the priests might be set up as superior and the seeds of schisms be taken away.” And a little later, “Just as the priests know that they are, by the custom of the Church, subjected to him who has been set up over them, so let the bishops know that more by custom than by the truth of our Lord’s dispensation are they greater than the priests, and that they must rule the Church in common.”
30. Again, Jerome, To the Priest Evangelius [Epistle 46 n.1], and it is in Decretum “We have read” [Gratian, p.1 d.93 ch.24], “Since the Apostle clearly teaches that the bishops are the same as those who are priests,” which he proves there by many authorities. And below, “At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist up to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the priests used always to choose one from among themselves and place him at a higher rank, whom they called bishop [literally = ‘overseer’], in the way an army may, if it do, appoint a general, and the deacons may choose from themselves one whom they know to be industrious and title him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do that, apart from ordination, a priest does not do?” The response of the Gloss there [Gloss on Decretum, p.1 d.93 ch.24]: “In ‘ordination’ are understood the other things that are not done save by bishops.” But this is explained as “not done licitly.” For that these things may absolutely be done [sc. by priests] is proved by the preceding gloss, where there is disputation about that in which the preferment is made to be, whether in office or in name; and at the end the gloss says, “the preferment is made as to administration and certain sacraments that are now appropriated to bishops.
31. . From this a twofold argument is made:
First thus: if such a preferment of bishops over priests was made after the Apostles, then it was not so from the beginning of the Church.
32. Again [second], if now these things [n.30] are made proper to someone, then they were before not proper from the beginning.
33. I reply: if from the beginning there was some act proper to a bishop (as Jerome says: what can a bishop do that, besides consecration, a priest cannot do?; the gloss understands the other things through ‘consecration’ [n.30]), it follows that there was from the beginning a difference between bishops and priests. And then the authorities do not prove the opposite but are to be explained as the Gloss does [ibid. n.30], namely that perhaps “the names were synonymous and the administration (that is the governance of the Church) was common.”
34. But not, however, was all dispensing of the sacraments common. This is proved in Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.21 ch.2, “In place of the Apostles bishops arose;” but “the priests bore the pattern of the seventy-two disciples” [Luke 10.1-24]. Therefore, the distinction between bishop and simple priest was made by Christ”
35. To the contrary: Was not Philip, and Stephen and the others of the seventy-two disciples, deacons and not priests?
36. Again: “I left you in Crete” for this, that you might ordain “priests” [Titus 1.5]; so a non-bishop could not do this.
37. This is also proved by the following chapter [n.29, Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.95 ch.6; taken from Ps.Jerome On the Seven Orders of the Church ch.6], and it is founded on the word of Paul to Timothy [I Timothy 4.14], “Do not neglect the grace given to you by the imposition of the hands of the priest,” where he does not draw a distinction, “since priests are also called bishops, according to what is said to a bishop ‘Do not neglect the grace given to you etc.’ and elsewhere [Acts 20.17, 28] ‘[Paul] to the elders: He who placed you bishops to rule his Church’.” These the words of Jerome.
38 Paul does not distinguish, therefore, the priest from the bishop, because he does not say that confirmation was given by the bishop alone, but he speaks of the priesthood.
39. Nor too in Acts is a distinction of priests from the Apostles, who were bishops, read of.
40. And if this is true, then to give confirmation could have belonged to every priest from his office, just as also to a bishop, because there was not, from first institution, another rank in the Church.
41. However afterwards, because of necessity, priests were multiplied and episcopal power as to some things was drawn away from them, and to the greater priests alone, who are called bishops, were certain things reserved, and ‘to confirm’ was such an act.
42. If this is true, Gregory [n.16] was well able to give the priests subject to Bishop Januarius license to confirm, because in this he did not concede an unfitting power to them but revoked a prohibition previously imposed on them.
43. If against this you object [Gandulphus Bononiensis, Alexander of Hales, William of Melitona, Thomas Aquinas] that according to these views, since in the primitive Church others besides the Apostles are not read to have confirmed, if then any of the priests was a a bishop, or equal to them as to this act, then it was, of their office, owed to bishops alone – I reply that either none other than the Apostles were priests, because the Apostles were then able to suffice, or if others were priests they deferred to the Apostles in this act, because of the evident manifestation of the Holy Spirt that used to happen in the conferring of this sacrament, so that it might be received with greater devotion because of the excellence of the ministers, and might be received in greater reverence.”
- John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, Book IV, dd.1-7, Distinction VII, Peter L.P. Simpson’s translation, pg. 206-208.
ENCHIRIDION OF COLOGNE
“Presbyters, who hold the highest order in the church, are called 'seniores' in Latin, which is the name presbyter Peter uses to refer to his presbyters. He says, 'The elders who are among you, I exhort, who am also a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, etc.' The elders are called such not merely because of age or old age, but rather because of the gravity of their character and the doctrine of wisdom that should shine forth in them as much as possible. For as it is written, 'Old age is venerable, not measured by the length of time nor by the number of years.' For gray hairs are a sign of a wise man, and the life of old age is unblemished. This Paul also attests in his letter to Timothy, the bishop and presbyter: 'Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity.' And after a few lines: 'Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery.' Those who are from this order are also called priests, from sanctifying or from giving or consecrating sacred things, for they consecrate and sanctify the body of Christ. This order is established as a substitute for the lesser priests of the Old Law. For when Moses established Aaron as the high priest, he anointed his sons as lesser priests. In the same way, Christ first chose the twelve disciples whom he also called Apostles, whose place in the church is held by bishops; then he designated another seventy-two disciples, whose place in the church is held by presbyters. It should not be thought that bishops established a different order in the church from presbyters. For in the primitive church, they were the same: bishops and presbyters, as the letters of the apostles Peter and Paul, Saint Jerome, and nearly all ancient ecclesiastical writers attest, particularly that passage in 1 Peter 5. It is evident, for when Peter said, 'The presbyters who are among you, I exhort, I who am also a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that is to be revealed,' he submitted: 'Feed or shepherd the flock of Christ that is among you, serving not by compulsion but willingly according to God.' Since the Greek [i.e. - Greek text] more significantly indicates, meaning 'overseers,' from which the name 'bishop' is derived. Therefore, the highest order in the church is considered the priesthood. Meanwhile, no one is unaware that this order is distinguished by a certain hierarchy of offices and dignities. For some are bishops, who are also pontiffs, archbishops, or primates; some are patriarchs, all of whom are surpassed in dignity by the Pope, holding the highest point of ecclesiastical dignity, whose status corresponds to the high priesthood of the Old Law: this distinction of ranks among presbyters has been made for the sake of order. For as Jerome says, afterwards one was elected from the priests to be placed over the others, as a remedy against schism, lest anyone draw the church of Christ to himself and break it.”
- Enchiridion of Cologne, page 169, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Cs9llljx4FAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=rumperet.&f=false
EUTYCHIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (876-940 AD)
“Marus also appointed twelve Presbyters with Hanania, who would stay with the Patriarch, so that when the Patriarchate was vacant, they would choose one of the twelve Presbyters, upon whose head the remaining eleven would lay their hands, bless him, and make him Patriarch. Then they would appoint another man as Presbyter to replace the one who had become Patriarch, ensuring that there were always twelve. This practice of appointing Patriarchs from the twelve Presbyters continued in Alexandria until the time of Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, who was among the 318. He prohibited the Presbyters from appointing the Patriarch and decreed that upon the death of the Patriarch, the Bishops would convene to ordain the new Patriarch. He further decreed that when the Patriarchate was vacant, they should elect an eminent man, either from any region or from the twelve Presbyters, or from others as circumstances dictated, and make him Patriarch. Thus, the ancient practice of Presbyters appointing the Patriarch vanished, and the decree that the Patriarch should be appointed by the Bishops took its place.”
- Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria, who out of the Records and Tradition of that Church, in his Arabick Originalls thereof saith as followeth [according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary pag. 29. 30. Link: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A27050.0001.001/1:9.26?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
GRATIAN (?-1159 AD)
“A priest is the same as a bishop, and bishops preside over priests only by custom. Also, Jerome on the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus, on the words: ‘And appoint.’ Formerly, the same person was both a priest and a bishop, and before factions arose in religion through the devil's influence, and it was said among the people: "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas," churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters. But after each one began to consider those whom they had baptized as their own, not Christ's, it was decreed throughout the world that one of the presbyters, elected, should be placed over the others, to whom the care of the whole church should belong, and to remove the seeds of schism. And shortly after: § 1. As presbyters know that by the custom of the Church, they are subject to the one who has been appointed over them, so too bishops should understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, and that they should govern the church in common.”
- Gratian, Distinction 95.
HUGH OF SAINT CHER (1200-1263 AD)
“And if there were only three priests in the whole world, it would be necessary for one to consecrate another as a bishop.”
- Hugh of Saint Cher, Commentarium in IV Libros Sententiarum, Vat. lat. 1098, fol. 169vb; Brussels, Bibl. Roy., MS. 1424 [11422-23] fol. 100rb; Bruges, Bibl. Publ. MS. 178, fol. 93vb. cited in The Tract on Holy Orders in the Summa of Roland of Cremona (Pars Dissertationis) p.52
HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR (1096-1141 AD)
“Therefore, the privileges [i.e. - the ordination of clerics, the dedication of basilicas, the consecration of sacred chrism, the imposition of the hand, and the common benediction over the people] named above were reserved to the highest priests individually for this reason, lest the same authority of power indeed claimed by all alike would render the inferiors insolent toward those placed over them and create scandal by this loose bond of obedience.”
- Hugh of Saint Victor, De Sacramentis, Book. 2. p. 3. c. 12. Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=3XIJAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=the%20privileges&f=false
JOHANNES TEUTONICUS (C. 1180–1252 AD)
“To this, some say that in the earliest Church, the office of bishops and priests was shared, and their titles were common. — But in the later primitive Church, both the titles and the offices began to be distinguished.”
- Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria, Distinction XCIII, https://books.google.com/books?id=np3zCkFjRmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=decretum+gratiani&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6Neh2PuIAxXbJDQIHT5kAK4Q6AF6BAgJEAI#v=snippet&q=officium&f=false
“Thus it is written in the 80th distinction among them. And that in the book of Consecrations, distinction 5, 'the hand.' Before preeminence, these names—presbyter and bishop—were synonymous. The administration was also common, because they governed the church with the counsel of priests, as said in the old distinction. In remedy for the schism, as it states here, the preeminence was established so that one would preside: in name, in administration, and in certain sacraments, which are now specifically appropriated to bishops.”
- Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria, Distinction XCIII, https://books.google.com/books?id=np3zCkFjRmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=decretum+gratiani&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6Neh2PuIAxXbJDQIHT5kAK4Q6AF6BAgJEAI#v=snippet&q=officium&f=false
MARSILIUS OF PADUA (1275-1342)
“Chapter 15: The Priestly Power in Itself and Incidentally: By the former, the priest is not inferior to the bishop; but by the latter, he is. This is indeed a difficult question, and one that is very necessary to consider. It has been stated to us in the 15th [chapter] of the first book, and similarly recalled in the eighth [chapter] at the end of this one, that the human legislator himself, either in his own right or as a part of the ruling authority, is the effective cause of the institution of all offices or parts of the state. Additionally, we have remembered to say in the last part of the first [book] that the priesthood, or the priestly office of the new law, was first instituted by Christ alone, who, however, demonstrated that He renounced all secular rule and all temporal dominion, as shown in chapters 4, 11, 13, and 14 of this book, and was neither a human legislator, as we see in chapters 12 and 13 of the first book. For this reason, we seem to have stated that it is not the same person who is the founder of any office of the state and the human legislator or ruler. Hence, someone might rightly doubt from this whose authority it is to institute the priesthood, especially in the communities of the faithful, since the statements made on this seem to contradict each other. Thus, in an attempt to remove this apparent contradiction in what has been said, we will first recall what we discussed in chapters 6 and 7 of the first book, namely, that some are the effective causes of any office of the state, in the sense that offices name dispositions of the soul; and others are the effective causes of them in the sense that they are parts of the state, instituted for the sake of obtaining sufficiencies from them, which also needs to be considered proportionally in the priesthood, just as in the other offices of the state. For the priesthood, inasmuch as it names a certain disposition of the soul (which the Sacred Scripture and Doctors call a character), has God as its immediate and principal efficient cause, imprinting this [character] on the soul, though not without some preceding ministry, as a sort of preparation. The beginning of this in the new law was from Christ: for He, who was both true God and true man, as human exercised the priestly ministry, which subsequent priests now perform. As God, He impressed the character on the souls of those whom He instituted as priests. Just as He first instituted the holy Apostles as His immediate successors, so consequently all other priests, though through the ministry of the Apostles and others succeeding them in this office. For when the Apostles or other priests laid hands on others and uttered the appropriate words or prayers for this purpose, Christ, as God, imprints this disposition or priestly character on those who wish to worthily receive it. And the same should be thought regarding the conferment of the other orders, from which some character is imprinted on the soul of the recipient. This priestly character, indeed, whether it is one or many, is the power by which a priest can consecrate, from bread and wine, the body and blessed blood of Christ with the proper pronunciation of words, and administer the other ecclesiastical sacraments, through which he can also absolve and bind people from sins. This character or power was received by the Apostles (according to the opinion of some) when Christ said to them, as it is written in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22. Since the sequence of this is more fully revealed in Luke, let us refer to it as it is there: 'Taking the bread, He gave thanks and broke it (Christ, that is), and gave it to them (that is, the Apostles), saying, "This is My body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."' 'Do this' means, 'have the power to do this.' But some believe that this authority was given to the Apostles by what is written in John 20, when Christ said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you retain, they are retained.' Others say this was done by what is written in Matthew 16, when Christ said to them in the person of Peter: 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' etc. Or by what Christ said to them in Matthew 18: 'Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Yet others say that there are two priestly powers or authorities mentioned: one by which they can consecrate the sacrament of the Eucharist; the other by which they can bind or loose men from sins. They say these were conferred upon the Apostles at different times and through different sayings of Christ. However, which of these is more probable is not relevant to the present intention. For in whatever way or at whatever time the institution of this office was made in the Apostles, it is certain that this power was given to them by Christ; and likewise, through the aforementioned ministry of theirs and their successors, it is conferred upon others who are assumed into this office. Thus, in 1 Timothy 4: 'Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' In the same way, deacons receive a certain character through the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Of them, it is said in Acts 6: 'These they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.' This priestly character, whether it is one or multiple, which we have said is the power to consecrate the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the body and blood of Christ, and the power to absolve and bind men from sins (which we will henceforth call the essential or inseparable authority of the presbyter, inasmuch as he is a presbyter), it seems to me probable that all priests have the same in kind, and the Roman bishop or any other bishop does not have a greater one than any simple priest. For in this authority, whether it is one or multiple, the bishop does not differ from the priest, as testified by Jerome, and even more clearly by the Apostle, as will be shown below. For Jerome says on that passage of Matthew 16: 'And whatever you bind on earth, etc.,' that 'the other Apostles have indeed the same judicial power (supplement, which Peter had) to whom, after the resurrection, Christ said (that is, Christ Himself): "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, etc."' The whole Church has this power, with the presbyters and bishops placed in this, preferring presbyters in this matter, because this authority is due to the presbyter as presbyter first and foremost and inasmuch as he is one. Regarding the power of the sacrament of the Eucharist, no one disputes that it is equal in any priest to that of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, it is surprising that some people stubbornly contend, albeit with less reason, that the Roman Pontiff has a greater power of the keys than other priests, when this cannot be proven from Scripture, but rather the opposite. For a clearer understanding of this, you should not be unaware that in the early Church, the names presbyter and bishop were synonymous, although they were assigned to the same office by different characteristics. For presbyter was a name imposed based on age, as if meaning elder; while bishop was based on dignity or care over others, as if meaning overseer. Hence, Jerome, in a certain letter to the presbyter Evander, which is usually titled 'How Presbyter and Deacon Differ,' says: 'Presbyter and bishop are names of different ages and different dignities. Therefore, in the letters to Titus and Timothy, when speaking of the ordination of bishops and deacons, the word presbyters is entirely omitted because in the bishop the presbyter is contained.' This is also clearly evident in the first chapter of the Apostle's letter to the Philippians, where he says: 'To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.' Behold, the Apostle did not call them anything other than bishops. For it is certain that there were many bishops in one city, but only because there were many priests. The same is clearly shown again by the Apostle in Titus 1: 'For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what was lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you, if anyone is blameless.' And immediately after mentioning the qualifications of the presbyters to be appointed, he adds: 'For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God.' Behold, he called the presbyter to be appointed nothing other than bishop. The same is found in Acts 20, where he speaks to the priests of one church, namely Ephesus, saying: 'Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.' Behold, in the church of one municipality, namely Ephesus, the Apostle addressed several as bishops, which was only because of the plurality of priests, who were all called bishops, because they were supposed to oversee the people. However, this name was later retained only by the one who was first among the priests of the same city or place, instituted by the other priests and people. The Apostle, however, called them more bishops than presbyters to remind them of the care and concern they ought to have for the rest of the faithful. He called himself a presbyter, not a bishop, out of humility, as appears from the aforementioned passage in 1 Timothy 4, where he said: 'Do not neglect the grace that is in you,' etc. Similarly, Peter and John called themselves elders, that is, presbyters, because this name was imposed based on age. Hence 1 Peter 5:1: 'The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.' And 2 John 1:1: 'The elder to the elect lady and her children.' And again in 3 John 1:1: 'The elder to the beloved Gaius.' However, where the common text of the canon has 'elder' or 'fellow elder,' Blessed Jerome in the aforementioned letter everywhere uses the term presbyter or fellow presbyter, because the Apostles used these names as synonyms. But after the time of the Apostles, as the number of priests notably increased, in order to avoid scandal and schism, the priests chose one among themselves who would direct and ordain others in the exercise of ecclesiastical office and service, distribute offerings, and manage the rest in a more convenient way, so that the economy and service of the temples would not be disturbed by each person doing as they pleased due to differing affections. This person, elected to regulate the other priests, retained the name bishop by later custom, as a superintendent, because he not only oversaw the faithful people, for which reason all priests in the early Church were called bishops, but also because he oversaw his fellow presbyters. Thus, such a person in Antioch retained the name bishop solely for himself, while others subsequently retained the simple name priest However, this election or institution by men did not confer upon the elected any greater merit, essential authority, or priestly power than that mentioned before: it only gave them a certain power of ordination and economic governance in the house of God or temple, such as the power to ordain other priests, deacons, and other officials. Just as a prior is given power over monks in these times: a power, I say, that is not coercive over anyone unless such has been granted to the elected by the human legislator (as demonstrated in chapter 4 and 8 of this work, and will be shown more fully in the following chapter), nor any other intrinsic dignity or power. In the same way, soldiers in the military choose a captain among themselves, whom they used to call a leader or commander in ancient times, although this name, 'commander,' has been transferred to a certain type or form of royal monarchy, and in this way is used in modern times. Similarly, deacons choose an archdeacon among themselves, to whom such election does not grant a greater essential merit or sacred order than that of the diaconate: but only a certain power (as we have said) of ordaining or governing the other deacons. Hence, the Roman bishop does not have any more essential priestly authority than any other priest, just as Blessed Peter did not have more than the other Apostles. For all received this same authority equally and immediately from Christ, as stated before with the authority of Jerome on that passage of Matthew 16: 'And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and it will be further clarified in the following chapter. This was also the clear opinion of Blessed Jerome in the aforementioned letter, in which, after demonstrating from many authorities of the Apostles that the presbyter and bishop in the early Church or in the time of the Apostles were entirely the same in essential dignity given by Christ, he gave the reason for these statements, saying: 'But the reason one was elected to be placed over the others was done as a remedy against schism, so that no one, by drawing the Church of Christ to himself, would break it apart. For even in Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist up to Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops, the presbyters always elected one among themselves, placed him in a higher position, and called him bishop, just as if an army were to elect a commander (that is, a leader or captain according to modern usage, not indeed according to what the term "commander" means in the modern usage of a monarch), or as deacons might choose among themselves someone they know to be capable and call him archdeacon. For what does the bishop do, except for ordination, that a presbyter could not do? as regards the acts of essential authority. For Jerome did not understand by ordination the power of conferring or bestowing sacred orders, since bishops do and did many things, even in his own time, which priests do not do, although any priest can administer all the sacraments with divine authority just as a bishop does. But he understood by ordination a certain economic power, which we previously discussed, given immediately by a man or men, which is also confirmed by the same Jerome's reasoning. For indeed, many bishops were elected by the entire people, such as Blessed Clement, Blessed Gregory, Blessed Nicholas, and many other saints, to whom it is certain that neither by the people nor even by their fellow presbyters was a higher sacred order or intrinsic character conferred, but only the power of ordering the affairs of the Church and governing persons concerning the exercise of divine worship in the temple or house of God. For this reason, such people elected to direct other priests in the temple and instruct the people in matters of faith were called bishops by the ancient legislators, such as by Justinian and the Roman people, who then called them reverend economists, whose chief was also called the most reverend economist by the same. And therefore, according to the truth and the intention of Jerome, a bishop is nothing other than an archpriest. But that there is no other essential dignity of a bishop than that of a priest, nor a greater dignity between bishops or priests, was also expressed by Jerome in the aforementioned letter, when he said: 'Nor should the church of the city of Rome be considered different from the church of the whole world; for Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, and all barbarian nations worship one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there is a bishop, whether in Rome, Eugubium, Constantinople, Reggio, Alexandria, or Rachis, they are of the same merit, they have the same priesthood. The power of wealth and the humility of poverty make a bishop higher or lower: otherwise, they are all successors of the Apostles.' There are indeed certain other institutions or appointments within the priestly offices that are not essential, such as the aforementioned election, by which one among them is chosen for the ordination or governance of others concerning matters pertaining to divine worship. These also include certain elections and institutions for teaching and instructing, and for administering the sacraments of the new law to a particular people and in a specified place, whether larger or smaller. Similarly, they include the distribution of certain temporal goods, both for themselves and for other poor people, as established and ordained by the legislator or individual persons for the support of poor evangelists in a certain province or community, as well as for the support of other poor people who cannot sustain themselves due to age, infirmity, or some other pitiable cause. However, this is only from what is left over after the sufficient needs of the evangelists have been met. These temporal goods, thus established, are called ecclesiastical benefits according to modern usage, as discussed in the fourteenth chapter of this work. These are entrusted to the ministers of the temples for distribution for the aforementioned uses—ministers, I say, who are appointed, elected, and ordained for this purpose in a certain province. .For by that essential authority, by which they are successors of the Apostles, they are not more determined to instruct a single place or people and to minister the sacraments of the new law than to others; just as the Apostles were not entirely determined, to whom it was said in the last chapter of Matthew: 'Go, therefore, and teach all nations.' Christ did not determine them to specific places, but they later divided the peoples and provinces among themselves, in which they would proclaim the word of God or the evangelical law, sometimes even perceiving this through divine revelation. Hence also, in Galatians 2: 'They gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (namely James, Cephas, and John) that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.' Thus, from the aforementioned, it is evident by whom the priesthood and other orders, which are called sacred, are instituted; because it is by God or Christ immediately, although with a certain preparatory human ministry, such as the laying on of hands and the pronouncement of words, which perhaps do not themselves effect anything, but are thus preordained by a certain divine pact or ordination. It is also evident from what has been said that there is another human institution by which one priest is preferred over others; by this, too, priests are appointed to certain provinces and peoples to teach and instruct in the divine law, to administer the sacraments, and to distribute temporal goods, which we have called ecclesiastical benefits. It further appeared from these things that in the first authority (which we have called essential from the beginning), all priests are equal in merit and priesthood, just as Jerome said in the aforementioned letter, giving the reason that all bishops are successors of the Apostles. In this, he seems to imply that all the Apostles were of equal authority; and consequently, none of them individually had authority over another or above the rest, neither in terms of essential institution (which we have called the first) nor in terms of secondary institutions. Hence, it also seems reasonable to think similarly about their successors among themselves, to whom and in whom such institutions, which we have called secondary and made by human authority, may come to be; and what is reasonably their effective cause remains to be determined.”
- Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis, Chapter 15, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Oxg8AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
NICHOLAS OF CUSA (1401-1464)
“Therefore, the necessary administration will best be according to positive law concerning the degrees of superiority and inferiority, as dioceses are distinguished, and one bishop is established to maintain unity among the presbyters. This is positive law.”
- Nicholas of Cusa, De concordantia catholica Book II Chapter XIII, link: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=DU9KAAAAcAAJ&rdid=book-DU9KAAAAcAAJ&rdot=1
“He remarks, in opposition to the genuineness of the Pseudo-Isidore letters of Clement: ‘Moreover, in these letters, a difference between bishops and priests is found, which, as Jerome and Damasus suggest, arose in the Church a long time after this.’”
- Nicholas of Cusa, De concordantia catholica Book III Chapter II, link: https://ia801801.us.archive.org/32/items/deconcordantiaca0000nich/deconcordantiaca0000nich.pdf
NICOLAUS DE TUDESCHIS (1386-1445 AD)
“I would rather think that the Pope can delegate this to a priest without distinction, because although it is established by the institution of the Lord who should administer the sacrament of the Eucharist, this is not established in the conferral of orders. For in ancient times, presbyters governed the Church in common and ordained priests. Therefore, just as they could do so in the past, it seems that the Pope can grant this to a priest, especially by delegation, since the delegate exercises nothing in his own name.”
- Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentary on the Decretals, Book 1, Chapter IV, Link: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:23528535$230i
“For immediately after the death of Christ, all the presbyters governed the church in common, and at that time there were no bishops among them, but the same presbyter was what the bishop was, and they equally conferred all the sacraments, as stated in chapter 'olim,' Distinction 95, and in chapter 'legimus,' Distinction 93. But afterward, to settle schisms, the Apostles appointed or ordained that bishops should be created, and reserved certain sacraments for them, forbidding others to simple presbyters. And observe here that such ordination has the effect of preventing and impressing the character, such that what presbyters confer in fact, they confer nothing; because those acts are to be considered invalid.”
- Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentary on the Decretals Book 1 Chapter IV, Link: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:23528535$229i
OECUMENIUS (10TH CENTURY AD)
“Writing to Timothy, he shows in general what kind of person a bishop ought to be. 'He desires a noble work.' I do not reproach him, he says. He desires a noble work, namely the office and presidency, provided he desires it for the sake of helping many and not for glory. For a bishop is also called a watchman because he watches over and observes everyone. Even Moses desired this, not for glory, but for the benefit it would bring to many. [...] Why did he [the apostle Paul] omit presbyters? Because he combined them with bishops. For what he said about bishops also applies to presbyters, since they are similarly priests and have the duty of teaching entrusted to them. 'Not double-tongued.' This means not deceitful or fraudulent. 'Not given to much wine.' He did not say 'not drunkards,' for that would be too crude; even though they may not become drunk, he says, they are nevertheless softened in the strength of their hearts. 'With a pure conscience.' He requires both faith and life. 'And let these also first be tested,' just as bishops are, so that they are not novices or newly converted.”
- Oecumenius, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3, Chapter VI: On the Virtue of Bishops.
PETER AURIOL (1280-1322 AD)
“Every form, inasmuch as it is in act, hath power to communicate itself in the same kind ; therefore, every priest hath power to celebrate orders. Why, then, do they not celebrate them ? Because their power is hindered by the decree of the church. Whereupon, when a bishop is made, there is not given unto him any new power, but, the former power being hindered, is set at liberty ; as a man, when the the act of reason is hindered, and the impediment is removed, there is not given unto him a new soul.”
- Peter Auriol Lib. 4 d. 24. artic. 2. as cited in Jus divinum ministerii evangelici
POPE GREGORY VII (1015-1085 AD)
“First of all, it must be noted that in these apostolic instructions, under the name of ‘bishop,’ presbyters are also included. For it would be inappropriate for the Apostle, after describing the bishop, to immediately address deacons if presbyters were not encompassed under the description of the bishop. Presbyters are second to the bishop and undoubtedly ranked above deacons. Either the Apostle never spoke of the ordination of presbyters, or he included them under the name of bishops. But it would be incongruous to omit the teacher while describing his minister, since the teacher is more necessary for ecclesiastical arrangements. Moreover, when the Apostle commands Titus to ordain presbyters in cities, he immediately informs him about their ordination, saying: ‘A bishop must be blameless.’ Similarly, he writes to Timothy: ‘Do not neglect the grace given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the presbytery,’ and shortly thereafter adds, ‘Do not be quick to lay hands on anyone,’ which specifically pertains to bishops. Therefore, he refers to the same individual as both bishop and presbyter. Thus, both Blessed Jerome and Saint Ambrose, faithfully explaining the Apostle's statements, testify that among the ancients, the bishop and presbyter were the same, with one name denoting the office and the other the age. However, as Jerome asserts, when individuals began to consider those whom they baptized as belonging to themselves rather than to Christ, to prevent schisms, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be placed over the others, to whom the entire care of the church would belong. After describing the bishop and presbyter, the Apostle cautiously adds instructions concerning deacons, saying: ‘Likewise, deacons must be dignified,’ as if to say: ‘What I have decreed for bishops and presbyters, I have also decreed for deacons.’”
- Pope Gregory VII, Decretals of Gregory VII, Mansi Volume 20, 418. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=bDiQYrC-D5AC&pg=GBS.PA415&hl=en
PSEUDO ALCUIN
“Jerome shows what the ancient consecration of bishops was like in his letter to Evagrius: ‘In Alexandria,’ he says, ‘from Mark the Evangelist up to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops, the presbyters always chose one of their own and placed him in a higher rank, and called him a bishop, just as if an army were to make an emperor, or the deacons were to choose from among themselves one they knew to be industrious and call him an archdeacon.’ The archdeacon has the same consecration as the other deacons but is set above them by the election of his brothers. Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus: ‘Before there were schisms in religion, and it was said among the people, ‘I am of Paul,’ etc., the Church was governed by the common counsel of the presbyters. But afterward, when each one claimed those whom he baptized as his own, not Christ’s, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be elected and placed over the others, to whom all the care of the Church should pertain, and thus the seeds of schisms would be removed.’”
- Pseudo Alcuin, De divinis officiis, Book II, Chapter XXXVII, How a Bishop is Ordained in the Roman Church, Link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/2070/2/38
RICHARD FITZRALPH (1300-1360 AD)
“From this, it seems possible to say, according to the Scriptures, in the matter of the Armenians, whether any priest may confer churches and bless altars, and also the vessels and vestments pertaining to the altars as a bishop does, since a bishop, in rank and order, has nothing more than any simple priest. However, the church has decided that such things should be performed only by those whom we call bishops, or that they should be exercised by them, with greater reverence and obedience being shown to them by the subordinates. There is also another obvious reason, which arises from the distinction of churches and parishes: no one may rightly perform such acts except in the places where he has the power of governance, which is greater. Thus, simple priests cannot perform such acts or other sacramental acts unless in these places such power is specially committed to them by those who have it. In this matter, there was no such restriction of priestly power in the primitive church, according to sacred scripture, it seems to me.”
- Richard Fitzralph, Summa domini Armacani in questionibus Armenorum, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=iFaX8gAjuuAC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=quilibet%20facerdos%20pot&f=false
“The consecration of priests, holy oil, the altar, and the temple were performed solely by the high priests, or at least these were read to have been done by them alone. For when someone was the highest in the New Testament church, this was observed, and the exercise of hierarchical acts was retained. The bishop singularly reserved and entrusted certain consecrations to lesser priests. However, it seems clear that these lesser priests themselves do not have the power to consecrate, and for this reason, it seems to me that Saint Dionysius asserts that the lesser priests cannot advance to higher offices or legitimately exercise such tasks, nor is it allowed for them to aspire to higher positions since they are deficient in the order of authority necessary to perform these acts. Therefore, just as in the Old Testament, so in the New, if all bishops were simultaneously deceased, the lesser priests could ordain bishops.”
- Richard Fitzralph, Summa domini Armacani in questionibus Armenorum, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=iFaX8gAjuuAC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=quilibet%20facerdos%20pot&f=false
ROLAND OF CREMONA (1178-1259 AD)
“A bishop is therefore greater than a priest in administration and power because he has been given the power to grant priests the ability to consecrate the body and blood of Christ. Hence, in the consecration of a bishop, no new character is conferred, although grace is increased if he receives it worthily. It belongs to the archbishop to consecrate the bishop and to grant him the power of consecrating priests and other administrations he possesses. Yet, the archiepiscopacy itself does not confer a new order. Whether it is a bishop or an archbishop—and similarly with others—they act according to the order of the priesthood, which is the root. This is evident because, in necessity, a simple priest could consecrate a bishop, and a bishop consecrates an archbishop. Thus, it is clear that these are merely names for different administrations. This is further proven by the fact that there is no other laying on of hands for a bishop than for an archbishop.”
- Roland of Cremona, The Tract on Holy Orders in the Summa of Roland of Cremona (Pars Dissertationis). p. 35
SEDULIUS SCOTUS (FLOURISHED 848 AD—860/874 AD)
“For a bishop must be blameless as a steward of God. He is referring to the bishop whom he had previously called a presbyter, before rivalries in religion arose by the instigation of the devil and people said among themselves: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas," and churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterward, when each one considered those whom he had baptized to belong to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be chosen and placed over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain, and thus the seeds of schisms would be removed. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when Paul had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of that church, to whom he later spoke among others in this way: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood." And here, observe carefully how, after calling the presbyters of the city of Ephesus, he later calls them bishops. This is to show that among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were the same. Gradually, however, to root out the seeds of dissensions, all responsibility was entrusted to one person.”
- Sedulius Scotus, Commentary on Titus, Chapter I.
SYMPHOSIUS AMALARIUS (9TH CENTURY)
“Presbyters are appointed in the place of the sons of Aaron. It is written in the Book of Numbers: ‘These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests, who were anointed, whose hands were consecrated to minister in the priesthood.’ Our bishops follow this custom, anointing the hands of presbyters with oil. It is clear why they do this: so that their hands may be clean for offering a sacrifice to God and generous for other duties of piety. Both are symbolized by the oil — the grace of healing and the love of charity. They preside over the Levites, as the same Book of Numbers demonstrates: "But Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, shall have charge of the sanctuary guard." And a little later: "This is the service of the Gershonite families in the tent of meeting, and they shall be under the hand of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the priest." For when they are consecrated, they receive the laying on of hands. What this signifies, as the Lord has given us, we have ministered. Let us learn from the authority of the holy Fathers what order the presbyters held in the time of the Apostles. Ambrose says in his treatise on Timothy: "Anyone unfamiliar with the use of the divine Scriptures might think that blessed Paul overlooked the presbyters. But this is not the case; for what he said earlier about the bishop, he also says about those who are now called presbyters, because in ancient times they were called by both names, presbyters and bishops." And after a few lines: "But one who can recognize this from those things which the Apostle wrote to Titus will understand better: 'That you should appoint presbyters in each city, as I directed you,' and saying how they should be ordained, he added: 'For a bishop must be blameless as God's steward.' Thus it was fitting that he should have said 'presbyter,' but he clearly named him both presbyter and bishop." And Jerome, in his letter to Titus, writes: "Let us pay attention to the words: 'That you should appoint presbyters in each city, as I directed you.' Explaining in the following what kind of presbyter ought to be ordained, he says: 'If anyone is without blame, the husband of one wife,' etc. Later, he adds: 'For a bishop must be blameless as God's steward.' Therefore, the same is a presbyter who is also a bishop." And shortly after: "If anyone thinks this is not our opinion, but that of the Scriptures, that a bishop and a presbyter are one, and one is a matter of age, another of office, let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians: 'Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: grace to you and peace,' and so on." Philippi is one city of Macedonia, and certainly in one city, there could not be several bishops, as they are now named. But because at that time they called the same bishops whom they now call presbyters, therefore he spoke indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. If this seems ambiguous to anyone unless confirmed by another testimony in the Acts, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Apostle Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of that Church, to whom he later spoke among other things: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." And here, observe carefully how, after calling the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he later called them bishops. To Evagrius: "But Peter in his first letter says: 'I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you.' This is more clearly expressed in Greek as ἐπισκοποῦντις, from which the name 'bishop' is derived." Do the testimonies of such great men seem small to you? Let the trumpet of the Gospel sound — the Son of Thunder, whom Jesus loved greatly, who drank from the bosom of the Savior the streams of doctrine: "The presbyter to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth." And in another letter: "The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth." Let them not disdain to be what their leaders were. The priest takes his name from leadership, as Bede explains in his exposition on the temple of Solomon. For the priest took his name in Latin from the fact that he ought to provide holy leadership to his juniors. Jerome, in the aforementioned letter to Evagrius, explains what their consecration would be like: "For in Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist up to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyter was always chosen as one and placed in a higher rank, and they called him bishop, just as if an army were to make an emperor, or the deacons were to choose from among themselves one whom they knew to be industrious and call him archdeacon." The consecration of an archdeacon is very well known to us. The archdeacon has the same consecration as the other deacons, but by the election of his brothers, he is set above them. Jerome also explains why one was chosen over the others in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus: "Before, at the instigation of the devil, there were factions in religion, and it was said among the people, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas,' the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. But after each one thought that those whom he had baptized belonged to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be elected and placed over the others, to whom all the care of the Church might belong, and thus the seeds of schisms might be removed." The same, where mentioned above, in his letter to Evagrius: "That one was afterward chosen to be set over the rest of the presbyters was done as a remedy against schisms, so that each one might not draw away the Church of Christ to himself." Let us consider why the name of presbyter passes to that of bishop. Ambrose says in his Epistle to Timothy: "But what is the reason, it is not right to pass over in silence concerning that change of names, which now seems to exist, and why the names are now distinguished, and neither can a presbyter be called a bishop, nor can a presbyter ever claim the name of bishop for himself while he remains a presbyter." For in ancient times, when presbyters were devoted to piety, they were ordained in every place, receiving this name indeed in contemplation of honor; just as among the Jews, they were called presbyters who ruled over the people. They were also called bishops because of that work which they were seen to fulfill, namely, overseeing all things related to the worship of piety, so that they had the management of all things entrusted to them. For they had the complete management and authority of ecclesiastical ministry committed to them at that time, and all things were governed according to their judgment. And further: "But after the blessed Apostles had departed, those who were ordained to preside over the churches after them could not be equal to those first apostles; nor could they possess the same testimony of miracles, but in many other respects they appeared inferior to them. They thought it grievous to claim for themselves the name of the apostles; they therefore divided the names themselves, leaving the name of presbyter to the presbyters, while others were called bishops, those who were endowed with the power of ordination, so that they fully recognized themselves as the leaders of the churches." Jerome explains what more a bishop has than presbyters, saying in his letter to Evagrius, often repeated: "For what does a bishop do, except ordination, that a presbyter does not also do?" And he explains, by whose constitution a bishop is established, in his treatise on Titus, saying: "Just as the presbyters know they are subject to the one placed over them by the custom of the Church, so also should bishops understand that they are superior to presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's ordinance, and that they ought to govern the Church together, imitating Moses, who, when he had the power to rule alone over the people of Israel, chose seventy men with whom he would judge the people." Concerning those seventy men, mention is made in the consecration of a presbyter, saying: "That when you have appointed high priests to govern the people, you choose men of the next order and second rank to assist them in their fellowship and work, just as in the desert you propagated the spirit of Moses through the minds of seventy wise men," and so forth. The work of a presbyter pertains to the gift of the spirit of wisdom, for good conduct.”
- Symphosius Amalarius, De ecclesiasticis officiis, Book II, Chapter XIII, On Presbyters, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/8470/2/6/14
Quotes & Testimonies From Reformation-era Theologians Under the Pope
GEORGE CASSANDER (1513-1566 AD)
“The Church desired this only to be clarified: in which orders the laying on of hands should be applied, namely, in the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate, although there is no agreement among theologians and canonists as to whether the episcopate should be placed among the orders. However, it is established that in the times of the Apostles, there was no distinction between bishops and presbyters, but later, for the sake of maintaining order and avoiding schism, a bishop was placed over the presbyters, and the power of ordination (that is, the laying on of hands) was reserved to him alone. It is also established that sacred orders properly refer to the diaconate and presbyterate, as these are the only ones that the primitive Church is said to have used, as Urbanus the Pope testifies, and Chrysostom and Ambrose note on Paul's First Epistle to Timothy, from which the ordination of bishops immediately follows the ordination of deacons. Concerning the lower orders, which in the past were customarily mentioned in five successive orders, these are, at present, neglected. All ecclesiastical discipline and order are utterly confused, and their duties have almost ceased, and their traces are barely visible in less frequented churches, where young men and adolescents are seen performing some lesser ecclesiastical duties.”
- George Cassander, De Articulis religionis inter catholicos, Article XIV, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=lJdNAAAAcAAJ&%3Bpg=PA68&%3Blpg=PA68&%3Bdq=cayaphis&%3Bsource=bl&%3Bots=DJ1l-rCr4y&%3Bsig=ACfU3U08fRBMTSjPfTpLeRFd7RPerujq7w&%3Bhl=en&%3Bsa=X&%3Bved=2ahUKEwjIvOfR_vr1AhVIjIkEHVM0AOgQ6AF6BAgDEAM
PAULO LANCELOTTO (1522-1590 AD)
“Presbyters and Bishops were once the same, but as a remedy against schism, one was chosen from among the presbyters to be called a Bishop. This is what is said: There are those who affirm that Presbyter and Bishop were once the same; and that the terms referred to different stages of age or rank. But since many presbyters were established in individual churches, it was decided as a remedy against schism that one would be chosen by them to be placed over the others. The one chosen retained the name of Bishop: chosen from among the presbyters, whose honor towards Bishops grew so greatly that they began to obey them as sons would. And they are no longer to be considered presbyters who are governed by no bishop's discipline and oversight.”
- Paulo Lancelotto, Institutiones Juris canonici, Book I, Chapter 21 (Defacerdotibus in inferiore gradu conftitutis), 1563 Link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Institutiones_Juris_canonici.html?id=LS5O-qqjaeUC
VÁSQUEZ (1549-1604 AD)
“The reasoning of later scholars regarding the previous two points, which is the fourth and final argument, drawn from the ministry of ordination of the subdeacon, is not answered in the same way by the Doctors: for all frankly admit, and cannot deny, that in ancient times, subdeacon ordinations were customarily conferred even by Chorepiscopi, according to several councils. However, some learned men argue that there were two types of Chorepiscopi: one type consisted of those who were truly bishops, residing in foreign dioceses, like today in Germany and Spain, where they serve as titular or suffragan bishops, and they believe that the Council of Antioch referred to them, granting them the ability to confer the subdiaconate. The other type consisted of those who were not true bishops, as described by Damasus in epistle 4 regarding the aforementioned ordination. And indeed, from canon 10 of the Council of Antioch, it does not seem to prove that any of these Chorepiscopi had received true episcopal ordination. This is indicated by the following words, according to the third translation: "Those who once were Chorepiscopi in villages and small towns received the laying on of hands from bishops and, as bishops without consecration, were permitted by the holy Synod to retain their mode of operation," etc. A little later it adds: "We decree that they may ordain lectors, subdeacons, and exorcists." And shortly afterward: "But they may not dare to ordain presbyters or deacons without the knowledge of the bishop of the city or Church, or to install deacons, or themselves, over the regions under their jurisdiction." From these words, it is clear that these Chorepiscopi were indeed ordained as bishops. First, because they were consecrated by multiple bishops, as Damasus frankly admits in epistle 4, a little before the middle, where he mentions this canon; and he himself draws this from the phrase "by multiple bishops," which, being in the plural, seems to indicate this: presbyters, however, are not consecrated by multiple bishops but by one; and conversely, true bishops are consecrated by multiple bishops. Then, because in that canon it is not only said that those Chorepiscopi were consecrated by multiple bishops, but also that they had been consecrated as bishops. Finally, since in that canon it is forbidden for them to dare to ordain deacons and priests without the knowledge of the bishop, it is clearly implied that they can do this with the consent of the bishop; something which would not be granted to them unless they were truly bishops. Furthermore, it is clear that Damasus speaks in that fourth epistle about other Chorepiscopi, who were not truly bishops. For there he also speaks about those who were accustomed to be consecrated by only one bishop, whereas bishops must be consecrated by multiple bishops. Therefore, when ordination is forbidden to Chorepiscopi, even for subdeacons, it seems to apply only to those who were not truly bishops. Others, however, of no less authority, think that Chorepiscopi were never bishops. This is the express opinion of Ayala in his work on Ecclesiastical Traditions, Part 3, Consideration 4, where he specifically discusses this matter, and Francisco Turrianus notes in his annotations on the Council of Nicaea, Canon 54, that the order of Chorepiscopi was nothing more than that of presbyters: the same opinion is followed by some learned modern scholars, who cite Democarc in his third book on sacrifice, Chapter 4, and Sotcal under the term 'Chorepiscopus', whom I have not read. Furthermore, Damasus did not distinguish between two different types of Chorepiscopi, nor did he consider them to be true bishops in all cases, including those mentioned by the provincial Council of Antioch; and even if they did not wish to be presbyters, he completely rejected the idea that they were anything at all, as Ayala proves in the cited work, and as he later deduced from Damasus himself. For before citing the canon of the Council of Antioch, he had said that Chorepiscopi should be abolished, and he had given his reasoning in these words: 'For we know that there are no more than two orders among the disciples of the Lord, namely, the deaconate of the apostles and the presbyterate of the disciples: thus, any third order (such as that of the Chorepiscopi) is entirely fictitious and must be utterly eradicated.' He speaks of this as if it were a third order of Chorepiscopi, without making any distinction among them. Furthermore, he proves that Chorepiscopi were instituted in the manner of the seventy disciples, as evidenced by the Council of Neocaesarea, Canon 13, where it is said: 'Chorepiscopi also seem to be in the example and form of the seventy.' He then cites Canon 10 of the Council of Antioch, and after admitting that, according to the tenor of that canon, Chorepiscopi were accustomed to be consecrated by multiple bishops, or as bishops, he never says that these Chorepiscopi were different from the former ones or were truly made bishops: but he clearly proves that, although they were consecrated by multiple bishops, they were still not truly bishops. He uses this reasoning: A Chorepiscopus is the same as a 'village bishop,' for χωρίον (Chorion) in Greek means what Villa means in Latin: but no one can be consecrated as a bishop to a village, nor to a castle, nor to a small town (he means according to the canons of the Church). If no response can be given to this (he says), it remains to be stated that Chorepiscopi lack all Episcopal authority: he speaks about those of whom the Council of Antioch speaks. Furthermore, he says that three things prevent them from being true bishops: the first is that they are often consecrated by one bishop, whereas a bishop should be consecrated by three. The second is that, even if they are consecrated by multiple bishops, it happens in a village, or a castle, or a small town, or in a place where it is not suitable for there to be a bishop. The third thing that hinders them, he says, is that if they have been established absolutely, and without a church in a village, all of these lack Episcopal authority. And (he says) this remains, that their order has no authority in Divine Scriptures, because, as I have prescribed, there are only two orders, the first in the Church, namely, the apostles, and the seventy disciples: indeed, if they were not bishops because for honorable reasons they could not be bishops, they wished to call themselves presbyters, as if they were aspiring to something greater, etc. I ask, what does he clearly bring forth from which it might be manifest that Damasus did not think that they were true bishops, although they were suspended or hindered from executing their office and ministry: but rather that they were not true bishops for the reasons mentioned. For although Damasus did not deny that they might be true bishops, even in a village, or a castle, or a small town, or even absolutely without a church, if they were ordained by three bishops, so that the ordination would be valid: although they would remain suspended from the order, because they were ordained in fact but not in law: nevertheless, he could not reasonably think that they had been ordained against the law, since they were ordained in the presence of the Church, and with its consent, and as a right they are not true bishops, being rightly ordained in any of the ways listed, they are not true bishops, but completely lack all Episcopal authority. Moreover, the words of the Council of Antioch already cited are difficult, for it says that the Chorepiscopi were consecrated by the bishops through the laying on of hands, and that they were customarily consecrated as bishops, which indeed seems to be a characteristic proper to the order of bishops. Damasus in the aforementioned epistle concedes that during the time of that Council, they were customarily consecrated not by one but by multiple bishops, since the canon states 'by the bishops,' and according to Damasus' interpretation, this plural term seems to indicate multiple bishops consecrating together. Nevertheless, he argues that they were not truly ordained as bishops, and this is explicitly proven by the reasons mentioned above and can be gathered from the entire context of the epistle. However, the words of the Council can also be understood in another way, namely, that such an ordination was not performed by multiple bishops together, but by only one. For although the Council says 'by the bishops,' it does not speak of the ordination or consecration of individuals, but of all the Chorepiscopi collectively: it was therefore appropriate to speak in this way and use the plural, even if they believed that each one was consecrated by a single bishop; just as we can rightly say that presbyters are ordained by bishops, for although one bishop can successively ordain many on the same day, it happens that not just one of many, but different ones consecrate different others. Add to this that the Council did not say that the Chorepiscopi were consecrated by a bishop through the laying on of hands, but through the laying on of hands in general: for bishops and presbyters impose hands together, but deacons are ordained by the laying on of only one person's hands. Moreover, although someone may say, along with Damasus, that individual Chorepiscopi were customarily consecrated by multiple bishops together, this does not compel us to concede that they were consecrated according to the true rite of bishops. What is added in that canon, 'And that they be consecrated as bishops,' rather indicates that they were not true bishops than the opposite: for the word 'as' diminishes the truth of the matter and indicates that they came in the likeness of bishops, as if they had truly been consecrated as bishops; for whoever is truly consecrated as a bishop is not said to be consecrated 'as a bishop.' If this opinion is admitted, the difficulty remains of the fourth argument in favor of the position of Cajetan and from Durandus concerning the subdiaconate: for if it were a true sacrament of Holy Orders, it could not be conferred by anyone other than its proper minister, who is the bishop. And since it was sometimes conferred by Chorepiscopi, as is evident from the places cited in the argument, it follows that it is not a sacrament instituted by divine law but rather a ceremony invented by the Church: otherwise, many things attributed to Chorepiscopi in the aforementioned places would be denied, which are established only by ecclesiastical law. By what reasoning, I ask, would something that was instituted by divine law be granted? This argument is joined by Ayala in the previously cited place, to deny that the subdiaconate is a sacrament. However, those who believe that Chorepiscopi were not true bishops are forced to assert, in order to avoid this absurdity, that the ordinary minister of this sacrament of the subdiaconate is indeed the bishop, just as the ordinary minister of the sacrament of confirmation is the bishop, though by delegation a simple presbyter could also be the minister, as the Chorepiscopi were; and thus, at that time, they were ministers by commission with regard to the order of the subdiaconate. This opinion has been handed down by some of the ancient theologians, and now even some more recent ones follow it, as we will report in Disputation 243, Chapter 4. And indeed, many Scholastics, who assert that the four minor orders are sacraments instituted by Christ, must also admit that their ordinary minister is the bishop; however, a simple priest can be the minister by delegation, particularly from abbots, who are not bishops, but indeed confer them. Although their power here has been somewhat restricted by the Council of Trent, Session 23, Chapter 10, De Reformatione, as we will see below. For this reason, we have never used the same force of argument against the aforementioned theologians to prove that the minor orders are not instituted by divine law, simply because they can be conferred by abbots, who are not bishops. For we knew that only the bishop is the ordinary minister of this sacrament, yet it can be said that a simple priest can be the minister by delegation, just as it must be granted in the sacrament of Confirmation. However, regarding the dual nature of the minister of this sacrament, in addition to the concessions made, not only to Chorepiscopi but also to abbots to confer the higher orders, about which we will speak in Disputation 253, Chapter 4, the foundation seems to lie in the words of Eugene IV, in the decree of faith after the last session of the Council of Florence, where he assigns to the other sacraments, except Matrimony, either a priest or another as an absolute minister, but does not call them the ordinary minister; yet he absolutely designates a minister, namely for Confirmation and ordination, he assigns the bishop, not absolutely, but as the ordinary minister. He assigns the minister only to ordination, but specifically to the sacrament of ordination, which is a sacrament by divine institution. By this addition, it seems to signify that in these two sacraments there are ordinary and delegated ministers. For although the delegated ministers in the sacrament of ordination are expressly distinct, as in the sacrament of Confirmation, he says that the ordinary minister of the sacrament of ordination is the bishop, yet he seems to clearly indicate that another can be delegated. I admit that Eugene designates the priest as the absolute minister in the sacrament of Penance because in that sacrament jurisdiction is required for absolution. He added that the priest must have jurisdiction, either ordinary or at least by delegation; however, there is a great difference between the ordinary minister of the sacrament of ordination, as we have said, and the delegated minister, the bishop being assigned. One could respond that Eugene said this concerning the four minor orders, about which there is doubt as to whether they are sacraments since it is clear that they can be conferred by a simple priest through delegation. However, when the ordinary minister is spoken of in relation to the delegated minister, delegation can only apply to the four minor orders, which are not clearly established as sacraments. Although for this reason the bishop is called the ordinary minister of ordination, he should not be called the ordinary minister of the sacrament of ordination, because this seems to imply that the four orders are united in relation to the sacrament, and thus it does not seem to apply solely to them. Thus, it can be understood that at some point the Chorepiscopi were given the commission to ordain subdeacons, even though they were not truly bishops, since this sacrament has not only the bishop as the ordinary minister but also a simple priest as the delegated minister, as some indeed think, whose arguments we will present in Disputation 243, Chapter 4. However, someone might ask whether it was ever entrusted to the Chorepiscopi to ordain deacons and presbyters; for in the Council of Ancyra, Canon 13, and in the Council of Antioch, Canon 10, it appears to have been granted. Nevertheless, we will address this matter in that disputation and in the chapter where we will specifically discuss the minister of this Sacrament. It is worth noting here that it makes no difference that many things were denied to the Chorepiscopi, which were instituted solely by ecclesiastical law, such as the consecration of altars, churches, virgins, sending letters of form, and other things of that kind. It must be acknowledged that the ordination of subdeacons, which was entrusted to them in the opinion of some, also belongs to ecclesiastical law. For since those things established by ecclesiastical law alone were not as necessary as the ordination of subdeacons, and the ordination of the latter, by divine institution, can be entrusted to simple presbyters, it is no wonder if such ordination was granted to the Chorepiscopi while other things were denied. And this is enough on this matter for this disputation.”
- Gabriel Vásquez, Disputation 238, Chapter VII: The Fourth Special Reason for Durandus' Opinion on the Subdiaconate, Derived from Its Minister, is Disproved.
“There are not lacking authors who, in favor of the Apostolic See and the power of the Pontiff, assert that only the Bishop is the ordinary minister of the Sacrament of ordination; however, they say that a simple priest, by commission from the Supreme Pontiff, can be a minister of all orders up to the presbyterate. By a simple priest, they mean a priest who is not a Bishop, whether or not he holds some dignity; for this makes no difference. I said, "up to the presbyterate," because regarding the episcopacy, there should be no doubt that it cannot be conferred by a simple priest, even by commission, as we will explain later; although the opinion of Paludanus considered it more probable, in the fourth book, distinction 17, question 4, article 3, after the second conclusion, primarily because he thought that episcopal consecration was an institution of the Church. He retracts this opinion in distinction 23, question 1, article 2 at the end. As for the other orders, we conclude that they can be conferred by a simple priest through the Pope's commission, and indeed not only by a simple priest without ordaining, as in a more distinct ministry of ordination by commission universally, but directly to all orders and Sacraments, without distinction between major or minor orders. First, against Adrian, all the authors cited, and those mentioned below, teach that a simple priest can be the minister of ordination by commission; and rightly so: for we see that not only in antiquity, but even now it is granted, that Cardinals who are not Bishops and exempt Abbots confer the first tonsure and minor orders. Thus, the Supreme Pontiff, who granted this privilege and entrusted this ministry, cannot be said to have erred, as Adrian claimed, without great rashness. Nor was this faculty revoked by the Council of Trent; rather, it was confirmed in session 23, chapter 10: On Reformation, where Abbots and others exempt within the boundaries of any diocese are instructed not to confer the first tonsure or minor orders on anyone except their subjects. Therefore, it is conceded or permitted that someone with privilege may ordain his subjects, while for others, unless proven otherwise, this Sacrament is not conferred by the ordination minister but also by commission to confer minor orders; thus, it cannot be denied that a priest who is not a Bishop can at least be the minister of minor orders by commission. Then, against Durandus and Sotus, the other authors cited in the previous chapter and those who will be referred to later, teach that a simple priest can also be the minister of ordination, which is a Sacrament, by commission. This can indeed be proven: for Eugene IV, in his decree on faith at the Council of Florence, after the final session, in the section The Sixth Sacrament, speaks of the minister of this Sacrament in this way: "The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the Bishop," although in the section The Second Sacrament, he had spoken similarly about the Sacrament of Confirmation; but for all the others, he had absolutely only assigned their minister, without making any mention of an ordinary minister. This is surely an indication that, in both of these Sacraments, he wanted to assign an ordinary minister, who, by virtue of his rank and office, could administer it; and another by commission, to whom the power of administering it could sometimes be entrusted, according to what suited his rank and office. Otherwise, it would have been pointless to mention the ordinary minister, who is called such only by comparison with the one who is by commission; for he should have said simply "minister," as he did in the other Sacraments, as we explained in Disputation 238, Chapter 7. Therefore, in order to satisfy Eugene's definition, Durandus and Sotus would either have to assert, like Saint Thomas and others cited earlier in Disputation 237, Chapter 1, that the minor Orders are a Sacrament, or concede that a non-Bishop cannot be a minister by commission for all the major Orders, or any of them. It does not seem sufficient to claim that a non-Bishop cannot be a minister by commission for ordination in general: for Eugene IV did not say that the ordinary minister of Ordination, but the ordinary minister of this Sacrament, is the Bishop. If, however, a non-Bishop could not be a minister by commission for any order that is a Sacrament, Eugene IV would have said in vain that the ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the Bishop, since no other minister, even by commission, could exist, by comparison with whom the term "ordinary minister" could be used. Finally, Aureolus explicitly taught, through Capreolus, in the fourth book, distinction 25, question one, article two, second argument, that a priest who is not a bishop can, by commission, be a minister to confer the sacred orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate. Angelus also supports this in his Summa under the entry "Order," second number, second argument, and the gloss in the chapter Pervenit (distinction 95), and in the chapter Manus, distinction 5. Innocent III, in the fourth chapter On Consecration, number four, and Panormitanus in the same chapter and ninth number, also hold this view. However, Panormitanus followed this opinion based on a false foundation, for he believed that there is no Divine law-based distinction between a priest and a bishop, and that the distinction exists only by the constitution of the Church. Thus, in antiquity, simple priests were accustomed to conferring all sacred orders. If this were true, simple priests would not be ministers by commission but by office and in their own right, being sufficient to confer sacred orders, even though they are now prohibited by the Church from conferring them. Therefore, if the Church refused to let them confer, their ordinations would still be valid, just as the ordinations by an excommunicated and degraded bishop are valid, which cannot be said in any way. Furthermore, concerning the subdiaconate and diaconate, the Supplement of Gabriel clearly teaches the same thing in the fourth book, distinction 25, question one, article three, second conclusion: for he believed that the priesthood could not be conferred. Some modern writers follow this opinion. Others, however, teach this only concerning the subdiaconate, and older authors are cited in support of the same opinion, though they should not be brought forward: because they agreed, believing that the subdiaconate was not a Sacrament. Nevertheless, authors who consider the subdiaconate to be a Sacrament can be cited in support of this opinion, for they believe that Chorepiscopi were never bishops, and that sacred orders, especially the subdiaconate, were sometimes conferred by them, as is evident from the testimonies of the Popes and Councils, which we will refer to below. Thus our own Francisco Turrianus holds, in his annotations on the Council of Nicaea, canon 54, Democritus in the third book on sacrifice, chapter 4, Soteal under the entry 'Chorepiscopus', and others; and in this opinion, at least as it pertains to the subdiaconate, Vitoria and Ledesma clearly incline, as we will mention below. The opinion of all these authors concerning the minister by commission for the major Orders universally is primarily supported by reasoning derived from the decree of Eugene IV and the teachings of those who argue the opposite. For since Eugene IV indicates quite clearly that a simple priest can be a minister by commission not only of ordination but also of the Ordination which is a Sacrament, and since St. Thomas and others, in opposition to Adrian, concede that a simple priest can by commission confer the minor orders, which they consider to be true Sacraments, nothing prevents, as it seems, that he could also confer other Orders by commission. For, according to their view, the minor Orders are no less instituted by Divine law than the major ones. For, as St. Thomas says, the major Orders are more directly related to the Body of Christ, while the minor ones are not. This argument does not seem sufficient, and in this way we could philosophize just as much about the minor Orders as about the major ones. First, because not all the major Orders are directly related to the true Body of Christ—since only the priesthood was instituted for the direct conferral of this—but the diaconate and subdiaconate are more remote, being instituted for ministry at the sacred altar. Second, how it is granted that the subdiaconate and diaconate are more directly related to the true Body of Christ, while the minor Orders are more remotely related, is not sufficiently proven either by any effective reasoning or testimony. It does not seem proven that the Pope can entrust the conferral of sacred orders to a simple priest for those Orders more remotely related to the Body of Christ but not for those more directly related. Moreover, any distinction made here does not seem to be relevant to the matter. I set aside the argument by which the Supplement of Gabriel also attempts to weaken this foundation of St. Thomas: first, because the points already made are sufficient to demonstrate the difficulty of the reasoning; and secondly, because it is evident that this author suffers from the same flaw that he wanted to attribute to others. For just as he thinks it is pointless to make a distinction, as St. Thomas and others do, between the minor and major orders — saying that it can be entrusted to a priest who is not a bishop to confer the minor orders but not the major ones — so we can also argue against him that there is no valid reason for making a distinction, as he claims, that a priest who is not a bishop can be entrusted with conferring the subdiaconate and diaconate but not the presbyterate. Then, the aforementioned opinion can be more effectively confirmed by the practice of the Church: (for it can in no way be said that the Supreme Pontiff has erred in such a grave matter as the administration of this Sacrament, on which so much depends). Moreover, although in these times, and even in the time of those authors who followed the opposing opinion, this ministry of conferring the major orders was not entrusted to simple priests, the argument drawn from this is purely negative; that is, it is derived solely from the absence of use, not from the existence of some positive contrary practice. However, we can reasonably argue that this was in use in ancient times. First, concerning the subdiaconate: if we admit once that Chorepiscopi were not true bishops, this can be confirmed by authority and reason, as we have mentioned in Disputation 238, Chapter 7. It can easily be proven from Canon 3 of the Council of Ancyra and Canon 10 of the Council of Antioch under Pope Julius I, which, though it was provincial, was later accepted in the 6th Council held in Trullo, Canon 2, and in Canon 44 of the Council of Meaux under King Charles the Younger, where it is granted that Chorepiscopi could ordain subdeacons. The same is inferred from the Council of Seville under King Sisebut, Chapter 7, and is further proven by a letter of Pope Gelasius, which we will cite later, and from Isidore in the second book On Ecclesiastical Offices, Chapter On Chorepiscopi, which states that Chorepiscopi, apart from the knowledge of the bishop, could not ordain subdeacons, as if to say that with the bishop's consent, they could rightfully do so. Furthermore, it is clear from the first letter of Gelasius that the Chorepiscopi were not ordinary ministers, in which he decrees that without the Pope’s consent, that is, without his approval, they could not ordain deacons and acolytes, as if to say: with his consent, they could. This indicates that their ministry was by commission. Additionally, Francisco de Vitoria, in Summa, number 235, attests that he read a Papal Bull in which it was granted to Cistercian abbots that they could confer the subdiaconate. If this is true (he says), it cannot be denied that it is possible, for it would be a great error in the Pope. And almost in the same way speaks Ledesma in his 1st Part, Question 40, Article 1. John Major also mentions another Bull in which even greater faculties were granted to the aforementioned abbots, and it is found in the privileges of the order, and we will cite its words below. Concerning the diaconate, this can likewise be proven, primarily against those who concede that the subdiaconate can be conferred by a simple priest through commission, for it is difficult to establish a distinction between these two orders since they are not only Sacraments but are also counted among the major orders and are referred to in the same way as directly related to the true Body of Christ. Moreover, because both the Chorepiscopi and the Cistercian abbots seem to have been granted the authority to confer the diaconate just as much as the subdiaconate. This will be proven concerning the Chorepiscopi when we address the priesthood. As for the Cistercian abbots, Maior in Book 4, Distinction 7, Question unica, § Secundo argumento asserts similarly that the Pope sometimes granted them the privilege through papal bulls to confer all orders except the priesthood: this privilege was for ordaining only their monks, as is found in the book of privileges of the said order, privilege 1.18. Other recent authors testify that they have seen a similar bull granted to the Benedictine abbots. There are also theologians who claim to have received reliable information that the same privilege was granted to Franciscan prelates in India. We have seen a bull in which Innocent VIII grants the aforementioned privilege to the Cistercian abbots, and it is included in the new compilation of privileges, privilege 1.18, and in a certain old manuscript titled The Collection of Bulls of the Cistercian Order, which is kept in the library of our College of Complutense. Its text reads as follows: "In order that no burden may arise for the monks of the said order due to the subjection to their abbots, and that the abbots of the said order may not be compelled to travel back and forth to the Roman curia and incur expenses, as has been the case until now, from this point forward we decree and by apostolic authority declare and establish that the aforementioned abbots, and their successors in perpetuity, by apostolic authority, may without difficulty or scruple confer the lesser orders, namely the subdiaconate and diaconate, or any of the minor sacred orders, on their monks in perpetuity." And so forth. In the meantime, this office is to be freely administered by apostolic authority, under specific conditions known to us, with special grace. This bull was issued in Rome by Innocent VIII in the year of our Lord 1489, on the eighth day of the Ides of July, in the eighth year of his pontificate. Navarrus mentions it in his book on Councils, Book 4, discussing privileges, where he refers to Council 138, stating that the Cistercian abbots, before the Council of Trent, had always enjoyed this privilege and faculty. Finally, concerning both the diaconate and the priesthood, the same can be confirmed from the tenth canon of the Council of Antioch, where, after it was granted to the Chorepiscopi to ordain lectors, subdeacons, and exorcists, it is added in this way: "But they shall not dare to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon apart from the bishop of the city, to whom (namely, the Chorepiscopus) they themselves are subject." The second translation for this reads: "Except for the bishop," meaning, "without the city's bishop"; the third translation reads: "Without the bishop's knowledge." This indeed expresses the sense of the canon correctly, for it does not contend that the Chorepiscopus cannot ordain deacons and priests without the assistance of the bishop; but rather, that he must not dare to ordain them without the bishop's knowledge and consent. From this, by contrary inference, it is gathered that if the bishop knows and consents, or does not oppose, the Chorepiscopus can ordain not only deacons but also priests. For if the Chorepiscopi were in no way permitted to ordain deacons and priests, just as the Council simply granted them the right to ordain subdeacons, it would have simply denied them the ordination of deacons and priests, not merely prevented them from doing so without the bishop's knowledge. Therefore, since the canon forbids such ordination only with that additional condition, it is a sign that, with the bishop's knowledge and consent, the Chorepiscopi were able to ordain deacons and priests. One might think that this very matter had previously been established in the Council of Ancyra, canon 13, where according to the third translation it is stated: "Chorepiscopi are not allowed to ordain presbyters or deacons, nor even presbyters, unless it has been permitted with letters from the bishop in a foreign parish." These words seem to indicate, by contrary inference, what was drawn from the canon of the Council of Antioch, and Balsamon refers to them and interprets them in this sense. However, other translations clearly express a different meaning: for example, "Chorepiscopi are not allowed to ordain presbyters or deacons, nor even presbyters in the cities without the command or letters of the bishop, in any parish." From these words, it is clear that in that canon it was not forbidden for Chorepiscopi, without the bishop's permission, to ordain presbyters of the city, but only the city's presbyters themselves; and in each parish, nothing could be done without the bishop's letters. This is understood to mean that it was prohibited in foreign parishes, but permitted in each parish. And indeed, since the canon does not strictly forbid Chorepiscopi from ordaining deacons and presbyters, but only without the bishop's letters, it would be less appropriate for the later prohibition to prevent the ordination of presbyters in cities where the Chorepiscopi resided, not in a simple manner, but with the added condition that the bishop was unaware. Therefore, the principal foundation of this opinion, as it pertains to the sacred orders of the subdiaconate and diaconate, is derived from the commission granted to the aforementioned abbots. As for what pertains to all sacred orders except the episcopacy, it is based on the testimony of the Council of Antioch, from which it seems to be gathered that this was at one time customary in the Church, indeed even before this decree and the Council of Ancyra, that Chorepiscopi were accustomed to administer the three sacred orders up to the priesthood by general commission. However, later in Ancyra, they were only permitted by that general commission to ordain subdeacons. In the Council of Antioch, it was granted to them that, with the knowledge and consent of the bishop of the city to whom they were subject, they could also confer deacons and priests. Moreover, it has been confirmed by several authorities that these Chorepiscopi were not truly bishops, according to some opinions, as stated in Disputation 238, Chapter 7. Furthermore, to explain this matter, four things must be noted from the mind of the same authors. First, they believe that this commission, which they claim can be given to someone other than a bishop, cannot in any way be given to anyone other than a priest, whether he is a layman or someone in holy orders. The primary reason is that no such commission has ever been recorded as being given to someone who was not a priest, and it is also quite fitting that it should not be given to a layman, because, as Paul says in Hebrews 7, "The lesser must be blessed by the greater." Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate for a layperson to ordain or bless anyone in the Church's hierarchy. For this reason, it can also be proven that a priest who is not a bishop can in no way, by commission, ordain and consecrate someone as a bishop, because such a thing has never been recorded as having been done, and also because it is not appropriate for someone of lesser rank to bless and confer a superior rank. However, this does not follow from the fact that a priest who is not a bishop can, by commission, confer all orders except the episcopate. Nor does it follow that such a priest, when ordaining others through commission, would necessarily be doing so falsely if he were truly a priest, as we noted in the second chapter regarding the ordinary minister of ordination. It is quite possible that a priest who is not a bishop could validly receive the priesthood but not the subdiaconate or even the diaconate. Therefore, in the view of those who support this position, it would be true that such a priest could confer all orders by commission, and those ordained by him would be truly ordained. This must be understood if it were unknown that the priest lacked the lower orders; then the mission would be valid according to this opinion, and it would have effect. However, if the Pope knew that this priest had not received such lower orders, it would not seem that such a ministry could be entrusted to him, because, according to other laws, he could not validly administer it. The power to entrust such a ministry, if it is fitting for the Supreme Pontiff to grant it by Divine law, is indeed granted for the building up of the Church, not for its destruction. The second point is that this commission cannot primarily be granted by the local bishop, but must be conferred by the Supreme Roman Pontiff either in a general council or outside of it, in order for the Orders conferred by its authority to be valid. However, by the will of the Pope, the consent of the bishop is sometimes required as well, as was established in the Council of Antioch concerning the conferral of the diaconate and presbyterate by Chorepiscopi. For what is said in the aforementioned Council, in canon 10, that Chorepiscopi are not allowed to ordain deacons and priests without the knowledge of the bishop, should not be understood as if the commission itself must be given by the bishop, but rather that the commission should not be understood to have been made for conferring these orders unless the bishop of the place is aware of and consents to it. The Council assumes that the Chorepiscopi had previously received this commission from the Roman Pontiff or a general council, which the provincial council later approved in Trullo, and they could regulate it in such a way that it would be better implemented in their province. Moreover, concerning the commission given to a simple priest to confer the Sacrament of Orders, we must think in the same way as we do about the commission to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, which must be granted by the Supreme Pontiff. The third point is that, although the commission of this ministry to a priest who is not a bishop is made by a person, that is, by the decree of the Church or the will of the Supreme Pontiff, nevertheless the power to entrust this ministry belongs by Divine law to the Supreme Pontiff and the Church, just as it is also commonly said concerning the power to entrust the ministry of Confirmation. For regarding the matter, form, and minister of the Sacraments, the Church cannot change or establish anything unless it has been entrusted to her by Divine law. This power can be best understood from the very actions of the Church, which is guided by the Divine Spirit. Finally, it should be observed that whatever privilege was granted to abbots, allowing them to ordain their subjects as subdeacons and deacons, has now been revoked, and they are only left with the ability to confer the tonsure and minor orders, as is evident from the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 10, On Reformation. And these points have been discussed to clarify the aforementioned opinion. Moreover, in this and the previous chapter, we have mentioned the opposing views of the authors and their foundations on this question, and we have examined them with the diligence we could. However, it seems appropriate to leave the judgment to the reader.”27
- Gabriel Vásquez, Disputation CCXLIII, Chapter IV: The Simple Priest, Not Only of the Minor Orders but Also of the Major Ones up to the Presbyterate, Is Said by the Opponents To Be a Minister by Commission.
WILLIAM OF AUXERRE (c. 1140–1231 AD)
“Proof of Nine Orders in the Human Hierarchy That archiepiscopacy and episcopacy are two additional Orders beyond the seven is supported by the Apostle's authority in Hebrews 7: Without contradiction, the lesser is blessed by the greater. Thus, the one who blesses is greater than the one who is blessed. Since the archbishop, by his office, blesses and consecrates the bishop, he holds a higher dignity—and, therefore, a higher Order—than the bishop. I. Additionally, consider Moses and Aaron among the priests of their time. Either they were equals, or one was greater. It is evident that Moses was greater because the Lord said to Moses in Exodus 4: You will be in matters pertaining to God. Thus, Moses’ priesthood was greater than Aaron’s, as Moses consecrated Aaron. Similarly, since the archbishop consecrates the bishop, the archbishop is of a higher Order than the bishop. Counterargument and Response It is objected that a bishop consecrates an archbishop, and the cardinal bishop of Ostia consecrates the pope, yet they do not have greater authority. To this, we reply—without prejudice to a better opinion—that what is done out of dispensative necessity is different from what arises from the dignity of office. The archbishop consecrates the bishop by virtue of his office’s dignity, making him of greater dignity, and this aligns with the Apostle's authority that the greater is the one who blesses by virtue of office, without contradiction. When, however, a bishop consecrates an archbishop, it is a dispensative necessity, just as in cases of necessity a non-priest may baptize even though baptism properly belongs to the priest. Similarly, since the pope has no superior or equal, a subordinate must consecrate him. For example, if there were only three simple priests in the world, one of them would have to consecrate the others as bishop and archbishop.”
- William of Auxerre, 4.16.2 (Magister Sententiarum), link: http://magistersententiarum.com/book/106/distinction/2573
Conclusion
I hope these quotes and their citations are helpful to you.
Please utilize this article as a jumping-off point for further personal study. And, if there are any quotes which you feel need added context, please feel free to let me know in the comments.
I’ll gladly fix any mistakes or oversights which may have been unintentionally included in the original article.
I hope to keep updating this list as I come across more quotes.
Until then,
The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
*Updates/edits:
Note: If you would like to see a Substack article documenting a substantial amount of Anglican quotes against strict apostolic succession, make sure to check out my other article on the matter…
Note: If you would like to watch an introductory Lutheran response to these claims, feel free to check out the following videos…
“Are Lutheran Holy Orders Valid?” by Dr. Jordan B. Cooper
“A Lutheran Approach to Holy Orders” by Dr. Jordan B. Cooper
“A Lutheran View of the Validity of Lutheran Orders [Narratio #2]” by Scholastic Lutherans
A playlist with the above videos and MORE:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjjcmFjyDP04H-jVr8Hbm49-3p8Jsh0y9&si=QZs3gMhnw1_HHOra
Note: One of our main contentions is that the distinction between Presbyter and Bishop historically developed for the sake of good order in the church and was based primarily around trying to prevent dissensions and factionalism.
Note: Notice that saying presbyters have the ability to ordain under certain proper circumstances is NOT the same thing as arguing that individual presbyters should go around ordaining whoever they want without any oversight. Neither Lutherans nor the Reformed would agree with the latter position.
Latin Text:
ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta apostoli ordinationi, quae nunc in ecclesia est, quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta. nam et Timotheum presbyterum a se creatum episcopum vocat, quia primi presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. denique apud Aegyptum presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit episcopus. sed quia coeperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatos tenendos, inmutata est ratio prospiciente consilio, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet episcopum multorum sacerdotum iudicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet et esset multis scandalum.
- Ambrosiaster Commentary on Ephesians 4:12.
Note: The occasion for the writing of this letter to the Corinthian church is that “on account of one or two persons, [the Corinthian church has] engage[d] in sedition against its presbyters” (1 Clement, Chapter 47). Interestingly enough though, Clement says that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons – no mention of presbyters. And yet, the unjust dismissal of presbyters is the very reason that Clement is writing his letter. Then, when we read Clement in chapter 44 speak about how “Our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” After naming only 2 offices as apostolically-appointed (bishops and deacons), Clement speaks of bishops and presbyters interchangeably with one another; in short: Clement affirms a two-fold office in which “presbyters” and “bishops” are interchangeable terms for the same office.
Note: Notice that the concern here is good order. The presbyters in question simply do not ordain “without the consent of the bishop” — NO mention of ontological incapability on their behalf is mentioned.
Latin Text:
CAP. 11. Ad solam, etc. Apud Isidorum habetur: Sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti clericorum ordinatio, etc.
- NOTAE IN DECRETUM IVONIS., PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM, link: https://artflsrv04.uchicago.edu/philologic4.7/PLD/navigate/1531/2?byte=28341&byte=28345&byte=28350&byte=28358
Note: In the very scarce fragments from Papias that we have, he repeatedly mentions several presbyters as bearing witness to the teachings and interpretations that he, himself, is perpetuating – he doesn’t seem to be very interested in appealing to bishops as a distinct higher office for these purposes. In this quote, he also speaks of presbyters as being the ones who are the disciples of the apostles.
Note: According to Washburn Professor of Church History Cyril C. Richardson,
“Irenaeus repeatedly states that Polycarp had received his tradition of faith from John, the disciple of the Lord, and other apostles, and that ‘apostles in Asia’ had appointed him to his bishopric.”
- Early Christian Fathers, Editor: Cyril C. Richardson, The Letter of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to the Philippians, Introduction, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vi.iii.i.html
Notice that Polycarp (despite being appointed as a bishop, himself, according to Irenaeus) does not write concerning bishops in this letter. Rather, he speaks about presbyters and deacons; he speaks about the behavior that ought to be expected of them, as well as the allegiance expected to be offered to them. Kinda bizarre that he would not mention expectations for and allegiance to the bishops, if he saw them as an ontologically separate and higher office.
Note: In today’s Ecclesialist apologetics, much is made of the call for laypeople to submit to their bishop, thus making the leap to saying that the bishop (as a distinct third office above that of presbyter), is the sole successor to the office of apostle. However, here is Polycarp telling the Philippian church to submit to the presbyters and deacons “as unto God and Christ.”
Note: Sourced from “THE ORDINATION OF THE EARLY BISHOPS OF ALEXANDRIA”
Note:
“A careful analysis of the Shepherd reveals that the text contains a consistent use of vocabulary and style. In addition, a certain thematic unity binds the writing in its current form. These elements appear to argue for a single author behind the work. It is just as likely, however, that this person was in fact a final editor who combined materials from several sources, making significant alterations in order to provide some theological consistency to the materials. The question of authorship remains a matter of great debate.”
- Jefford, C. N. (2012). Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction (Second Edition, p. 146). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Note:
“The author does not clearly distinguish among the rulers of the church, calling them both ‘presbyters’ and ‘bishops.’ The evidence indicates that there is no firm understanding of two distinct offices. This suggests that the leadership of the community consisted of several individuals and did not depend on a single bishop (see 8.3; 13.1).”
- Jefford, C. N. (2012). Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction (Second Edition, p. 147). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Note: Regarding chapters 1-25, Jefford writes,
“The arguments from literary imagery and church structure suggest that the author wrote during the general period of Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century (see 8.3).” Regarding chapters 26-114, he argues that this section “may fall anywhere within the first half of the second century, though certainly by the time of Pius I (ca. AD 150).”
- Jefford, C. N. (2012). Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction (Second Edition, p. 147). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Note: Here are a couple of interesting articles to check out on this topic…
Article #1: “PRESBYTERAL ORDINATION AND THE SEE OF ROME” by Lawrence N. Crumb: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9047ba67-c467-4d97-a20f-73f7da36dbff/content
Article #2: “A LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE VALIDITY OF LUTHERAN ORDERS” by Arthur Carl Pipekorn: https://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/PiepkornValidity.pdf
Note:
“Note that no one says the ordinations Liudgeri performed were invalid. That doesn’t even come into anyone’s mind. What we have, then, is a clear snapshot of the fact that presbyterial ordinations were not de facto considered invalid. And hence, any claim to apostolic succession that requires a strict line of Bishops risks affirming that almost none of us have valid orders, since we cannot prove such a thing—especially since presbyterial ordinations were considered valid at this time.”
- Sean Luke, Ancient Testimonies to Presbyterial Succession, link:
Original Latin:
Interea, per dispositionem misericordis Dei, Saxones conversi sunt ad Dominum, et rex Karolus eundem virum Dei Liutgerum pastorem in occidentali parte Saxonum constituit. Cuius parrochiae sedes est principalis in pago Sudergoe, in loco cuius vocabulum est Mimigerneford, ubi Domino ipse honestum construxit monasterium sub regula canonica Domino famulantium. Itaque, more solito, cum omni aviditate et sollicitudine rudibus Saxonum populis studebat in doctrina prodesse, erutisque idolatriae spinis, verbum Dei diligenter per loca singula serere, ecclesias construere, et per eas singulos ordinare presbyteros, quos verbi Dei cooperatores sibi ipsi nutriverat. Cupiebat igitur in coepto evangelizandi opere multis subvenire gentibus, sed tamen pontificalem gradum humiliter declinare; idcirco suos frequenter petiit alumnos, ut aliquis ex eis pro eo episcopalem susciperet ordinem. Cui cum Hildibaldus episcopus persuaderet, ut episcopus ordinari debuisset, illud apostolicum ei respondit, dicens: “Oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse.” At ille, ut erat humilis et viro Dei amicissimus, cum gemitu dixit hoc in se minime fuisse completum. Tandem consensu omnium superatus, et magis Dei dispositione coactus, acquievit, ne plurimorum consilio, immo Dei voluntati, contrarius esse videretur.
Note: While this quote has been attributed to John Chrysostom at various times down through the ages, WesternCatholike has found that it actually belongs to Anselm of Laon’s corpus.
Note:
“St. Ansgar, in a biography of St. Willehad, shows us that Willehad ordained priests before he was a bishop. [...] Now one might say, “how do we know he was only a priest?” Because he’s said to be ordained a bishop in 787 by St. Ansgar in Chapter 8. And again, no one saw the fact that he had been ordaining priests as a priest as an impediment.
- Sean Luke, The Case for Presbyterial Succession, link:
Original Latin:
Post haec vero gloriosissimus Francorum rex Karolus, qui iam multocienes in gente Saxonum elaboraverat, quo ad fidem christianae religionis converterentur — illi adversi semper cordis suscipiam fidem saepe descerentes, pristinis magis implicabantur erroribus — audita fama viri Dei, ad se venire accelerari praecepit. Quem ut ad se venientem honorifice ac reverenter suscipiens, eius cohabulationi ab eo cum gratanter lubenter animam attendebat, probatumque sanctis moribus ac fidei non fictae constantia, misit in partes Saxoniae ad pagum qui dicitur Wigmodia, quo initia absit cottidie regali et ecclesias instrueret, et populis doctrinam sanctae praedicationis pandere inciperet, atque viam salutis aeternae liberet cunctis illius habitantibus nunciater. Quod ille ministerium devote susceptum officiosissime peregit, ac pertinaciam cunctam in circuitu diocesim, multos ad fidem Christi evangelizandum convertit, ita ut in secundo anno tam Saxones quam et Fresones in circuitu commorantes, omnes se pariter fidem promittere christiano. Hoc itaque factum est anno incarnationis Domini 781ᵒ, regni vero memoriali principis Karoli 14ᵒ, qui tamen necdum imperiali fuerat apice sublimatus. Postea rex per manus reverentissimi Leonis apostolici imperatorem Romae consecratum anno regni eius 34ᵒ catholicæ Europae consistens Christi venerata partem et gratulabunda suscepit ecclesia. Siquidem imperialis potestas, quae post Constantinum piumissimum augustum apud Graecos in Constantinopolitana hactenus residebat sede, cum deficientibus iam ibi viris regalis prosapiae, feminae magis administrarent rem publicam, imperatoribus ipsis per electionem Romani populi et maxima episcoporum auctoritate Dei servorum conlocis, ad Francorum translata est in dominium; quoniam ipse et de eadem supra caput imperii fuerat, et multas alias provincias pro Deo videbatur tenere provincias; ob quod ut iter caesareae dignitatis esset appellatus. Praefato itaque regni eius tempore, servus Dei Willehadus per Wigmodiam circumquaque circulos conscendere et presbyteros super eas ordinare, qui liberis populis monitae salutis, ac baptismi conferrent gratiam. […] Post haec autem iterum venerandus Domini sacerdos Willehadus regem adiit Karolum, qui tunc forte in castello consederat Saxoniae Eresburh, praeponens voluntatis suae devotissimam in praeparatione evangelii pacis affectionem, atque ipsum in hoc aequissimam requirens praeceptionem. Qui pro consolatione laboris ac praesidio subsequenter eius, dedit ei in beneficium quandam cellam in Francia quae appellatur Iustina, praecepitque ei, ut iterum pro nomine Christi coeptam repeteret parrochiam. Quod ille gratanter ac religiose suscipiens, rursus venit Wigmodiam, et fidem Domini publice ac strenue gentibus praedicabat. Ecclesias quoque destructas restauravit, probatasque personas qui populis monita salutis darent, singulis quibusque locis praeesse disposuit. Sicque ipso anno, divino ordinante instinctu, gens Saxonum fidem christianitatis quam amiserat denuo recepit. Sed et totius illi mali auctor, incorrigenter perfidiae Widukindus, eodem anno regi se subdens Karolo, baptismi est gratia consecratus. Sicque ad tempus sedata sunt mala, quae illius fuerant ingesta pernitie. Post haec vero cum omnia pacifica viderentur, et sub leni iugo Christi Saxonum ferocia licet coacta iam mitiscerent colla, memoratus praeexcellentissimus princeps in Wormatia positus civitate, servum Dei Willehadum consecrari fecit episcopum, tertio Idus Iulii, constituitque eum pastorem atque rectorem super Wigmodia, et Laras, et Riustri, et Asterga, necnon Nordendi, ac Wanga, ut inibi auctoritate episcopali et praeeset populis, et uti coeperat doctrina salutari operibusque eximiis, speculator desuper intentus, prodesse studeret. Sicque ipse primus in eadem dioecesi sedem obtinuit pontificalem. Quod tamen ob id tam diu prolongatum fuerat, quia gens credulitati divinae resistens, cum presbyteros aliquoties secum manere vix compulsa sineret, episcopali auctoritate primine regi paebatur. Hac itaque causa, septem annis prius in eadem presbyter est demoratus parrochiam, vocatus tamen episcopus, et secundum quod poterat cuncta potestate praesidentis ordinans. Percepta vero consecratione pontificali, coepit in omnibus etiam devotius se agere, et virtutum studia quae prius exercuerat, multiplicius augmentando cumularet.
Original Latin:
tamen ex demandatione Papæ quilibet conferre potest quod habet. vnde ordinatus ordinem quem habes, cōferre posset, & confirmatus confirmationem. S. dist. prox. nulla ratio. alias non, vt s. 1. q. 1. gratia. & q. 7. Daibertum. Vnde nota quod cum collatio sacramenti competat alicui ratione ordinis & officii, etiam "prohibitus cōferre potest, vt 9. q. 1. ordinationes. 1. q. 1. quod quidā. vbi vero ex adminiculo ordinis & demandatione, & vt confirmatio in fronte sacerdoti, vel collatio ordinis competi non episcopis, vt 95. dist. peruenit. & 69. dist. cap. 1. in eo casu prohibitus nihil agit, vt hic in cap. manus.
Note: Notice that the emphasis and the focus in this treatise is in the authority to carry out these tasks which, when things are done in good order, should flow down from ecclesiastical superiors granting dispensations and command for their ecclesiastical inferiors to carry out these tasks.
Note: Canon 86 is canon 78 in Thaner's version. Canon 121 is marked as Canon 112 in Thaner.
Original Latin:
Ut personae promovendae diligenter inquirantur, et presbyteri semper recitent nomina apostolici 86. Quod presbyteri majores sunt diaconis, et quod olim id presbyter quod episcopus
Note: Here, Vasquez defends priests ordaining with the approval of the pontiff.
Apostolic Succession was only a chain of custody to the canon and something that only mattered until the longer Johanine Canon was embraced by the majority.
In the 2nd century you have hyper Paulinist groups that embraced only one gospel and the Pauline epistles. Then you have the Johanine group that embraced the longer canon we now have.
Ireneaus from the later first brought up apostolic succession in debating the former. Both claimed apostolic succession as proof of their canon. Both were right. Paul gave the shorter canon, and John gave the longer decades later. And ultimately the John side won the argument on the basis that since John lived longer, we should all upgrade to the longer Johanine canon. And when that took place, apostolic succession died as it was no longer needed. It never had anything to do with the eucharist and that is mere pagan superstition that only your Harry Potter wizard priesthood can turn the bread into Christ.
Not all of these really support jure humano episcopacy and presbyterial ordination (related but distinct ideas, some jure divino advocates support presbyterial ordination).
Jure divino advocates admit the equivalent usage of the terms bishop and presbyter in the NT, and they likewise say that bishops are priests. Some say that episcopate is a higher sacramental order, so bishop:priest::priest:deacon, whereas others say that the episcopate is the perfection of the priesthood.