ORDERS
280
ORDERS
II, 155). The "Statut:iccclpsi;rantiqua"enumorafo
nine orders, adding psalmists and counting bishops and
priests soiiarately. Others enumerate eight orders,
thus, e. g. the author of "De divin. offic", 33, and St.
Dunstan's and the Jumieges pontificals (Mart("ne I,
viii, 11), the latter not counting bishops, and adding
cantor. Innocent III, "De sacro alt. minister.", I, i,
counts six orders, as do also the Irish canons, where
acolytes were unknown. Besides the psalmista or
cantor, several other functionaries seem to have been
recognized as holding orders, e. g., fossarii (fossorcs)
grave-diggers, hermcneuta: (interpreters), custodes mar-
tyr um etc. Some consider them to have been real
orders (Morin, "Comm. desacriseccl.ordin.", Ill, Ex.
11,7); but it is more probable that they were merely
offices, generally committed to clerics (Benedict XIV,
"De syn. dioc", VIII, ix, 7, 8). In the East there is
considerable variety of tradition regarding the number
of orders. The Greek Church acknowledges five, bish-
ops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers. The
same number is found in St. John Damascene (Dial,
contra manichaeos, iii) ; in the ancient Greek Church
acolji^es, exorcists, and doorkeepers were probably
considered only as offices, (cf. Denzinger, "Rit.
orient.", I, 116).
In the Latin Church a distinction is made between major and minor orders (q. v.). In the East the sub- diaconate is regarded as a minor order, and it includes three of the other minor orders (porter, exorcist, acolyte). In the Latin Church the priesthood, dia- conate, and subdiaconate (q. v.) are the major, or sacred, orders, so-called because they have immediate reference to what is consecrated (St. Thom., "Suppl.", Q. xxxvii, a. 3). The hierarchical orders strictly so- called are of divine origin (Cone. Trid., Sess. XXIII, can. 6). We have seen that our Lord instituted a ministry in the persons of His Apostles, who received fullness of authority and power. One of the first ex- ercises of this Apostolic power was the appointment of others to help and succeed them. The Apostles did not confine their labours to any particular Church, but, following the Divine command to make disciples of all men, they were the missionaries of the first gen- eration. Others also are mentioned in Holy Scripture as exercising an itinerant ministry, such as those who are in a wider sense called Apostles (Rom., xvi, 7), or prophets, teachers, and evangelists (Eph., iv, 11). Side by side with this itinerant ministry provision is made for the ordinary ministrations by the appoint- ment of local ministers, to whom the duties of the ministry passed entirely when the itinerant ministers disappeared (see De.^con).
Besides deacons others were appointed to the min- istry, who are called Trpcc-pirepoi and ^ttIo-kottoi. There is no record of their institution, but the names occur casually. Though some have explained the appoint- ment of the seventy-two disciples in Luke x, as the in- stitution of the presbyterate, it is generally agreed that they had only a temporary appointment. We find presbyters in the Mother Church at Jerusalem, re- ceiving the gifts of the brethren of Antioch. They ap- pear in close connexion with the Apostles, and the Apostles and presbyters sent forth the decree which freed the gentile converts from the burden of the Mo- saic law (.\cts, x\', 23). In St. James (v, 14, 15) they appear as performing ritual actions, and from St. Peter we learn that they are shepherds of the flock (I Pet. V, 2). The bishops hokl a position of authority (Phil., i; I Tim., iii, 2; Tit., i, 7;) and have been ap- pointed shepherds by the Holy Ghost (Acts, xx, 28). That the ministry of both was local appears from Acts, xiv, 23, where we read that Paul and Barnabas ap- pointed presbyters in the various Churches which they founded during their first missionary journey. It is shown also by the fact that they had to shepherd the flock, wherein they have been appointed, the presbj'- ters have to shepherd the flock, that is amongst them
(I Pet., V, 2). Titus is left in Crete that he might ap-
point presbyters in every city (kotA r)6\iy, Tit., i, 5:
ef. Chrys., "Ad Tit., homil.", II, i).
We cannot argue from the difference of names to the difference of official position, because the names are to some extent interchangeable (Acts, xx, 17, 28; Tit., i, 6, 7). The New Testament does not clearly show the dislini'lidii l>i>tween presbyters and bishops, and we mu^t ex:! mine its evidence in the light of later times. Towaiils the cnil of the second century there is a universal and unquestioned tradition, that bishops and their superior authority date from Apostolic times (see HiEH.\RCHy of the Early Church). It throws much light on the New-Testament evidence and we find that what appears distinctly at the time of Igna- tius can be traced through the pastoral epistles of St. Paul, to the very beginning of the history of flic Mother Church at Jerusalem, where St. James, the brother of the Lord, appears to occupy the position of bishop (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13;xxi, 18; Gal., ii, 9) ; Timothy and Titus possess full cjiiscopal authority, and were ever thus recognized in tradition (cf. Tit., i, 5; I Tim., v, 19 and 22). No doubt there is much obscurity in the New Testament, but this is accounted for by many reasons. The monuments of tradition never give us the hfe of the Church in all its fullness, and we cannot expect this fullness, with regard to the internal organi- zation of the Church existing in Apostolic times, from the cursory references in the occasional writings of the New Testament. The position of bishops would necessarily be much less prominent than in later times. The supreme authority of the Apostles, the great number of charismatically gifted persons, the fact that various Churches were ruled by Apostolic delegates who exercised episcopal authority under Apostolic direction, would prevent that special prominence. The union between bishops and presby- ters was close, and the names remained interchange- able long after the distinction between presbyters and bishops was commonly recognized, e. g., in Iren., " Adv. ha-res.", IV, xxvi, 2. Hence it would seem that already, in the New Testament, we find, obscurely no doubt, the same ministry which appeared so distinctly afterwards.
Which of the Orders are Sacramental? — All agree that there is but one Sacrament of Order, i. e., the totality of the power conferred by the sacrament is contained in the supreme order, whilst the others con- tain only part thereof (Bt. Thomas, "Supplem.", Q. xxxvii, a. i, ad 2"'"). The sacramental character of the priesthood has never been denied by anyone who ad- mitted the Sacrament of Order, and, though not ex- plicitly defined, it follows immediately from the state- ments of the Council of Trent. Thus (Sess. XXIII, can. 2), "If any one saith that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain steps, advance is made to the priesthood, let him be anath- ema." In the fourth chapter of the same session, after declaring that the Sacrament of Order imprints a character "which can neither be effaced nor taken away; the holy synod with reason condemns the opin- ion of those who assert that priests of the New Testa- ment have only a temporarj' power". The priesthood is therefore a sacrament.
With regard to the episcopate the Council of Trent defines that bishops belong to the divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them (Sess. XXIII, c. iv, can. 6, 7). The superiority of bi.shops is abundantly attested in Tradition, anrl we have seen above that the distinction between priests ,and bishops is of Apostolic origin. Most of the older scholastics were of opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament ; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e. g.. Billot, "De sacramentis", II), though the majority of theologians hold it is cer-
