CHAPTER FOUR

 

Prospective of synthesis: the formation of priests in the early centuries of the Church[1]

 

 

In the previous chapters—after an extensive methodological and bibliographic introduction—we have examined a few texts that deal with priestly formation, in reference to the “tradition of Antioch” (from Ignatius to John Chrysostom) and the “Alexandrian tradition” (mostly Origen).

In this concluding chapter we would like to bring together in a historical systematic framework—from the origins to the 5th century—the readings and the reflections we have had so far. Thus the references to the specific theme of priestly formation in the Fathers will flow along with the historical discourse on the origins and the development of the hierarchical ministers in the Church.[2]

 

 

1. Before the Council of Nicaea (325)

 

The pre-nicaean testimonies on ordained ministries are sorted in two bodies that complement each other: on one hand, the loyalty to the New Testament writers and the continuity with the experience of the first Christian communities[3], on the other hand an adaptation to new situations inside and outside the Church.

As we shall see, both bodies converge towards Nicaea in a progressive hierarchization of the ministerial priesthood.

In the most ancient period, running from the end of the first century to the last decades of the second, there is a strong sense of unity in the Church and of the common membership of the Christians as the “chosen race”, the “royal priesthood”, the “holy nation”, “the people God has bought.” So, ancient and venerable texts such as the Didache, the Letter to the Corinthians, by Clement of Rome and the Letters of Ignatius compile the information on the New Testament ordained ministries without much concern for the internal distinction of roles, but concentrating rather on the new identity common to all the faithful.

Instead, in the subsequent period, i.e. between the end of the second century and the last decades of the third, the situation evolves. The political landscape, especially, changes, so in the climate of the tolerance that follows the initial, violent persecutions, the Church enjoys a period of relative calm and tranquility, which allows it to consolidate within its structure. In this historical context, the “ordained priesthood” becomes more and more markedly "hierarchical", and the sociological distinction between clergy and laity is established. This phenomenon found an exact parallel in the history of the term laikós and in a series of testimonials—expressed mostly by Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian—who come to oppose the two realities of clergy and laity, sometimes even in pejorative terms towards the lay condition. [4] The awareness in the Church that even ordained ministers come from the laity and that the priesthood of the faithful is the common feature of the new people of God fades away.

In the transition from the first to the second period, the age of the Severus emperors (193-235) is particularly relevant. Historiographic analysis allows us to state that some features of the so called "Constantinian turning point” came early—the extent of which is difficult to determine—precisely because of the tolerance of the Severus dynasty. In this historical and institutional context, the bishops of Rome—especially Victor, Zephyrinus and Callixtus—clearly felt the need to strengthen the organization of the community. Their commitment is exercised at two levels. Towards civil society and political institutions they favored a shrewd missionary dialogue, extended to the most influential ranks of the Empire; while within the community they cared for a more efficient organization of the Church structures, starting precisely from the hierarchical priesthood and from the authority of the bishop. In this regard, the documentary analysis should concentrate primarily on the Apostolic Tradition.

 

In general, we must admit that we hardly find any mentions of the process of formation of the clergy in the pre-nicaean Fathers. Only towards the end of the second century is the concept of "deacon" used for the training of clerics: in the first generations of Christians, in fact, "the bishops, successors of the Apostles, continue the training of candidates for the priesthood as did the apostles [. ..]. The trainer of the clergy is, therefore, the bishop in his role of teacher, liturgist, and pastor."[5]

But let us return to consider in detail the three stages mentioned: first, the most ancient period, then the third century, finally, the "hinge" of passage that the period of the Severus emperors represents. 

 

 

1.1. The Fathers of the first and second centuries

 

“Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.”[6]

Thus, the Didache, in the light of the New Testament, refers to "bishops and deacons" chosen by the community. They have a ministry similar to that of the prophets and doctors, who in turn "teach to establish justice and knowledge of the Lord.”[7]

The context of the quote—in particular the chapters 11-15—is enlightening. There is described the essential unity of Christians who, in a manner that recalls Luke’s “snapshots” in the Acts, live the commandment of brotherly love to the point of putting "everything in common." Everyone feels as a "companion" to their neighbor, on the same equal footing of equality. Yet this is not a community amorphous and indistinct. On the contrary, distinct roles and charisms already appear. In fact, it speaks of the presence of itinerant prophets, who enjoyed special respect and honor in the community, of doctors, and, finally, of bishops and deacons. This last reference is very important, because it is a testimony to the gradual absorption of the charismatic itinerant hierarchy (apostles-prophets-doctors) into the institutional hierarchy of individual local churches (bishop-priests-deacons).[8]

It is interesting to note that this diversity of ministries reflects an image of the Church beneficially "dispersed" in its mission to the world, while the gift of unity is asked for and waited for: "As this bread that we break was scattered on the hills and, after the harvest became one", the Eucharistic Prayer of the Didache says, “so let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” And a little further: “Remember, Lord, your Church. Make it perfect in your love, and, sanctified, gather it from the four winds into Thy kingdom which you prepared for it, because yours is the power and glory forever.”[9]

 

Clement, for his part in the first letter to the Corinthians recommends to "doing everything that the Lord has prescribed in an orderly manner in the established timeframe. He has prescribed to make offers and perform liturgical services (leitourgiai) not at random and in disorderly fashion, but on schedule and at established times. He himself then, in his sovereign will, has determined where and who he wants to perform them so that everything is done in a holy fashion and according to his will and is well acceptable to him [...]. In fact, the high priest has been entrusted with liturgical functions that are his own just as the priests was preassigned to a place of their own, and the Levites have their own function. The layman is confined to secular regulations.”[10]

In this way, referring to the liturgy of ancient Israel, Clement reveals his ideal Church. Already in the previous chapters of the Letter he had recalled two other similarities. The first has to do with the army, in which soldiers are subjected, in proper order, to their commanders. The second has to do with the body, where all the members “co-breathe” in a single submission for the conservation of the entire body. But there is only one pivot on which all three similarities rotate—that of the army, of the body and of ancient Israel— which is the universal order that governs both macro and microcosm. Its unifying force is "the only Spirit of grace poured out on us," which breathes in the various parts of the body of Christ, where all, without any separation, are "members of one another".[11] The Church is not a place of confusion and anarchy, where one can do what he wants, because each one carries out his proper ministry in the proper order, according to the place allotted to him in accordance with the charism received.

But this variety of ministries—in Clement as well as in the Didache—is ordered to the common mission, which is mentioned in the concluding "great prayer": "May all the people know that you are the only God and that Jesus Christ is your son, and we your people, the sheep of your pasture".[12]

 

The wonderful “co-breathing” of which Clement speaks becomes “symphony of unity” in the Letters of Ignatius: in this regard, the discussions already held on the Ignatian letters remain.[13]

What unites the documents so far alluded to, and which reaches its peak in Ignatius, is—as we have already noted—a kind of dialectic between two indispensable elements of Christian life: on the one hand, the fundamental unity that binds all the faithful in Christ, on the other, the hierarchical structure of the Church.

But in these ancient texts there is no room for the opposition of roles. Instead, the fundamental experience of communion and reciprocity of the believers founds and maintains the awareness of the common mission. Precisely the certainty of belonging to one single body, totally engaged in the mission exceeds the strength of identification carried by each of the ministries that are carried out within the same body, which has Christ as its head.[14]

 

 

1.2. The Fathers in the third century

 

The situation changes in the third century, when one begins to speak explicitly of the laity as a “category” in the Church. At that point, it stands out distinct from the clerics, even in the awareness that the latest come from the laity. The term “lay” can have negative connotations while the communities experience the full hierarchical weight of ordained ministers.

On the other hand one cannot even say that in the third century there is a loss of conscious awareness of the common priesthood of the faithful as a distinctive feature of the new people of God. This is demonstrated by numerous witnesses, including authors usually quoted to demonstrate the progressive hierarchization of the Church.

The same Clement of Alexandria, who in another context alludes to the “infidelity of the laity” [15], never tires of repeating that the Logos is the common teacher of a single  “new and young people” the people of the “new and young covenant.” [16] And Origen, going back to the rich sub-apostolic exegesis of 1 Petri 2.9 ( “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people whom God has acquired for himself”') [17], in the ninth Homily on Leviticus presents in these terms the priestly identity of every believer: “Do  you not know that the priesthood was conferred to you, and therefore to the whole Church of God and to the community of believers? Listen as Peter speaks of the faithful: ‘Chosen race,’ he says, ‘royal, priesthood, holy nation, a people whom God has acquired.’ You, therefore, have the priesthood because you are a ‘priestly race’”. [18]

Then, that all the faithful, in the variety of their specific ministry are called to a common mission of salvation is, among other things, expressed by a singular testimony of Contra Celsum: Christians, says Origen, do not serve in the military because they are priests, and, as such, fulfill the role that the pagans recognize for their priests. "Christians," he continues in the same context, "are much more useful to the homeland than all other men; they form their fellow citizens, teaching them piety towards God, guardian of the city. They help those who live honestly in their small town to climb to a divine and heavenly polis."[19]

 

1.3. The passage from the first to the second period

Ultimately—in spite of those who are inclined to see in the patristic testimonies systematic opposition between hierarchy and laity[20] and, ultimately, an unconditional delegation of the mission to ordained ministers—it seems that in the period before Nicaea a fruitful dialectic between the fundamental unity of the “chosen race” and the hierarchical structure of the Church was never missing. We must speak rather of a different balancing of the two instances. Simplifying to the maximum, we could say that the second took the upper-hand over the hegemony of the first: in the middle, as a “hinge” between the two periods, there is the period of the Severus emperors (193-235).

Expressed in this fashion, the simplification is certainly excessive. It retains, however, a provocative value that immediately calls for the study of the historical and institutional environment between the first and third century. This is, in fact, a decisive chapter for those who wish "to write a history of the Christian mission and of the conversion of the ancient world".[21]

Overall, the organization of the Respublica points to the cracks of the next crisis, as the institutional church is gradually establishing itself into an empire that is officially a persecutor. And while the crisis is delayed by the advent of the Severus emperors—blatantly engaged in consolidating and expanding the religious propaganda of the monarchy—the obvious adhesion of the court, the upper-class and the senatorial families to Christianity preludes to the final act of conquest on the part of the Church, perhaps as never before committed to extend its missionary dialogue to the most influential classes of society.

Thus, under the Severus emperors and its paradoxes—where Christians were persecuted, yet admitted to the intimacy of the imperial family—the spread of Christianity at first caused a parallel increase in the quantity and quality of the laity in the Church. Secondly, more intensive exchanges between pagan and Christian cultures exposed the ecclesial institutions  to a number of different influences, coming first from Roman society and its pyramidal organization, then from the Platonic tradition and its models of polis with their degrading structure from the perfection of the One to the imperfection of the many. We also add to these influences those derived from certain Old Testament representations that propose a clear separation between the priestly caste and the people.[22]

Consistently, the two essential and complementary instances of church life—on one hand the respect for the common priesthood of believers and the charismatic structure of the Church, on the other the promotion of the sacrament of order and the hierarchical structure of the People of God—were encouraged in a new way by the unprecedented new political and cultural climate.

In particular the urgent need for more defined and efficient organizational structures, starting with the authority of the bishop and the training of clergy, was reflected in a clear establishment of the hierarchy in the communities.

     The documentary feedback is provided mostly by a famous writing that belongs to the Hyppolitus corpus: The Apostolic Tradition, the most ancient ritual for ordination, which continues to inspire our liturgies. Indeed even today the Roman Church celebrates the ordination of bishops with the text of the Traditio and incorporates the substance of the anaphora in the second Eucharistic Prayer.[23]

The problems of authorship, of the dating and of the transmission of this venerable document—that did not reach us directly, but that has been identified and reconstructed according later to sources—go to the heart of Hyppolitus vexata questio.[24]  In any case, the ancient text of Traditio is commonly attributed to the middle of the Severus period, around 215.

In the Apostolic Tradition, clerics appear permanently configured in the triad bishops-priests-deacons.

They are the only one that are ordained through the laying of hands. [25] Through the rite, grace is poured out especially for the ministry concerned. Other ministries are recognized and established, but without ordination and impositio manuum: it is not a matter to enable someone to assume a presiding liturgical office, but simply to recognize a state of affairs (confessors, virgins, healers), to give a title (widows), or to entrust a task (lector, subdeacon).

The role of the bishop becomes most important: it is he who ordains, he is the head, he is the successor of the apostles; he participates into the Spirit of the high priest. Priests are his advisers and aides in the government of the people, like the priests chosen by Moses. The deacons are then ordered not to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop, because they execute his orders.

“God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, says the solemn prayer of consecration of bishops, “pour out upon him the power which is from you, the princely Spirit,
which you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which he gave to your holy apostles (...). Grant, Father who knows the heart, to your servant whom you chose for the episcopate, that he will feed your holy flock, that he will wear your high priesthood without reproach,
serving night and day, incessantly making your face favorable, and offering the gifts of your holy church; in the spirit of high priesthood having the power to forgive sins according to your command; to assign lots according to your command; to loose any bond according to the authority which you gave to the apostles.” [26]

Certainly we cannot miss the threefold reference to the primacy of the Episcopal priesthood. For our part we think that it should be seen as the impetus of that “push towards the hierarchy” that characterized the pontificates of Victor, Zephyrinus and Callixtus, and that led the Christian community of Rome between the end of the second century and the early part of the third century “to organize itself in a strong unitarian fashion, strengthening the authority of the bishop.” [27]

On the other hand, as we have seen, the Apostolic Tradition also presents a rich variety of non-ordained ministries—those of confessors, widows, lectors, virgins, subdeacons and healers, plus those of ostiaries and acolytes—which are certainly not “flattened” by the authority of the bishop.[28] In dialogue with the ministers and all the faithful, the bishop concelebrates, in the liturgy and in life, through prayers of oblation and the solemn concluding doxology, which expresses the eternal mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Church and the world: “we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your Holy Church. In their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith in truth, that we may praise you and glorify you, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be glory and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages.” [29]

 

2. After Nicaea, towards Chalcedon (325-451)

 

 

2.1. The historical context

 

The dominant "historical trend" in the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries is that of a progressive affirmation of the Christian religion over paganism. In less than eighty years we move from persecution to the supremacy of Christianity (edict of Theodosius in 380). [30]

In this context, the so called "imperial Church"[31] increasingly sought to organize its internal structures starting, of course, from the various hierarchical levels and from the training of the sacred ministers.

 

2.2. The orders or hierarchical “levels”

 

It is precisely during the fourth century that the subdivision of the clergy is established. At the beginning of the next century, Innocent I (401-417) identifies those subdivisions as clerici superioris ordinis (bishops, priests, deacons) and clerici inferioris ordinis (subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, ostiaries, lectors). [32] But the lower grades were subjected to major changes, both in number, in establishing their rank (did they really belong to the clergy?), and in the definition of tasks. [33]

 

2.3. The treatises on the priesthood

 

At the same time, between the fourth and fifth centuries, there is a real proliferation of writings on the subject of priestly holiness. We should list them. In the East, in addition to the short Sermon on the priesthood of Ephrem the Syrian (+ 373), we have the second Oration of Gregory Nazianzen (+ 390) and the famous Dialogue on the priesthood of John Chrysostom (+ 407); in the West we must at least name the De officiis [ministrorum] by Ambrose (+ 397), the letter of Jerome (+ 419 or 420) to Nepoziano, and various speeches and letters of St. Augustine (+ 430). [34]

 

2.4. “Clerical formation” and “monastic formation”

 

The training issue was clearly present in the monastic experience of the fourth and fifth centuries. [35] We can even speak of “a close interaction” between clerical training and monastic training. [36] On this topic we must consider especially the Conlationes, communitarian conversations under the form of dialogue, led by an “elder”: this is how the figure of the “spiritual father” was born in hermitic and monastic circles.  Anthony the abbot (+ 356) is the founder of hermitic monasticism. Anthony establishes the spiritual father as the guide to perfection; he told his monks: “You, like children, bring to me as to a father, the things that you know, and tell me. For my part, as I am older than you are, I will tell you about what I know and have experienced.”[37]

Next to Anthony we must remember Pachomius, who in 323 founded the first cenobitic community with its characteristic structures (monastery, rule, Abbot) and Basil (+ 379), for whom the monastic life was the perfect implementation of Christian life.

But it is mainly in the West that there is an encounter between clerical and monastic training. Eusebius was the first, as bishop of Vercelli from 345, to gather his own clergy in vita communis, thus becoming the founder of the oldest monasterium clericorum. The history of the encounter between the monastic and ecclesiastical institutions continues with Hilary of Poitiers (+ 367) and Martin of Tours (+ 357), true model of bishop/monk. On the “arrival line” we find Augustine. After his ordination as bishop, he writes, "I want to have in my home a monastery of clerics ... And you all know—he points out to his people—that we live here in the so-called house of the bishop, to imitate as far as possible those saints mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘No one considered as his what he possessed, but they held everything in common’.” [38]  Also in Carthage Augustine established a monastery with the same purpose.

 

 

 

 

3. Conclusion

 

At the conclusion of this summary, to bring in their historical context the patristic testimonies on clerical training, we must read an important passage of the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi. Paul VI, in 1975, wrote: “A glance at the origins of the Church is very illuminating, and gives the benefit of an early experience in the matter of ministries. It was an experience which was all the more valuable in that it enabled the Church to consolidate herself and to grow and spread.” [39]

This is the perspective of these pages: to compare one of the early analyses of the PDV to the history of Christian origins. The text says: “’And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him’. (…) It can be said that through her work of forming candidates to the priesthood and priests themselves, the Church throughout her history has continued to live this passage of the Gospel in various ways and with varying intensity”.[40]

For our part we remain convinced that the reference to the living tradition of the Fathers will help “trainers” and “trainees” to compare themselves effectively, in every moment of the priestly formation, with "the essential aspect of the priest that does not change"[41] because the priest of the “new evangelization” just like the priest of the Christian origins, is still called to be a living and transparent image of Christ the Good Shepherd. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                     Enrico dal Covolo


[1]Start up Bibliography:  O. PASQUATO, L'istituzione formativa del presbitero nel suo sviluppo storico (sec. I-XVI), «Sale­sianum» 58 (1996), pp. 269-299 (extensive scattered bibliography).

 

[2]Cfr. A. FAIVRE, Naissance d'une hiérarchie. Les premières étapes du cursus clérical (= Théologie historique, 40), Paris 1977; ID., Ordonner la fraternité..., pp. 55-109 (with extensive bibliographic review: cfr. mostly pp. 459-472, to which I add now J. YSEBAERT, Die Amtsterminologie im Neuen Testament und in der Alten Kirche. Eine lexikographische Untersuchung, Bre­da 1994. However Faivre thesis must be submitted to careful critical scrutiny: cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, Chiesa Società Politica. Aree di «laicità» nel cristianesimo delle origini [= Ieri Oggi Domani, 14], Rome 1994, pp. 160-162). On the origins of the hierarchical priesthood, also see R.M. HÜBNER, Die Anfänge von Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat in der frühen Kirche, in A. RAUCH-P. IMHOF SJ (curr.), Das Priestertum in der Einen Kirche. Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat. Regensburger Ökumenisches Symposion 1985 (= Koinonia, 4), Aschaffenburg 1987, pp. 45-89; A. HOUSSIAU, Le sacerdoce ministériel dans l'Église ancienne, in A. HOUSSIAU-J.-P. MONDET (curr.), Le sacerdoce du Christ et de ses serviteurs selon les Pères de l'Église (= Collection Cerfaux-Lefort, 8), Louvain-La-Neuve 1990, pp. 1-47; P. CHAUVET, Sacerdoce des baptisés, sa­cerdoce des prêtres (= Pères dans la foi, 46), Paris 1991; J. SARAIVA MARTINS, Il sacerdozio ministeriale. Storia e teologia (= Subsidia Urbaniana, 48), Rome 1991; E. FERGUSON (cur.), Church, Ministry, and Organization in the Early Church Era (= Studies in Early Christianity, 13), New York-London 1993; finally see M. SIMONETTI, Presbiteri e vescovi nella chiesa del I e II secolo, «Vetera Christianorum» 33 (1996), pp. 115-132, and mostly E. CATTANEO, I ministeri nella Chiesa anti­ca. Testi patristici dei primi tre secoli (= Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 25), Milan 1997.

 

[3]On the New Testament ecclesiastic order—seen as a still developing system—see G. GHIBERTI, Sa­cerdozio ministeriale e laicità. Il progetto neotestamentario, in DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE RELIGIOSE DELL'UNI­VERSITA' CATTOLICA (cur.), Laicità nella Chiesa (= Fede e mondo moderno, 3), Milan 1977, pp. 160-180.

 

[4]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO (et alii), Laici e laicità nei primi secoli della Chiesa (= Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 21), Mi­lann 1995.

 

[5]O. PASQUATO, L'istituzione formativa del presbitero...

 

[6]Didaché 15,1-2, edd. W. RORDORF-A. TUILIER, SC 248, Paris 1978, pp. 192-194.

 

[7]Ibidem 11,2, pp. 182-188.

 

[8]Cfr. Didaché. Dottrina dei Dodici Apostoli. Introduction, traduction and notes by U. MATTIOLI (= Letture cristiane delle ori­gini, 5/Testi), Rome 19803, pp. 63-69, and complexively K. NIEDERWIMMER, Die Didaché (= Kommentar zu den Apo­stolischen Vätern, 1), Göttingen 1989. Also see F.E. VOKES, Life and Order in Early Church: the Didache, in W. HAASE (cur.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 2,27,1, Berlin-New York 1993, pp. 209-233; C.N. JEFFORD (cur.) The Didache in Context. Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission (= Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 77), Leiden - New York - Köln 1995 (A Bibliography of Literature on the Didake, pp. 368-382). On the relationship between “charism” and “institution” in the early centuries, see now E. CATTANEO, Carisma e istituzione nella Chiesa antica 37 (1996), pp. 201-216.

 

[9]Didache 9,4. 10,5, p. 176.

 

[10]CLEMENTE ROMANO, Lettre aux Corinthiens 40,1-5, ed. A. JAUBERT, SC 167, Paris 1971, p. 166.

 

[11]Ibidem 46,6-7, p. 176.

 

[12]Ibidem 59,4, p. 196.

 

[13]Vedi sopra, note 42-51 e contesto.

 

[14]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, I laici nella chiesa delle origini, in M. TOSO (cur.), Laici per una nuova evangelizzazione. Studi sull'esortazione apostolica «Christifideles Laici», Leumann (Turin) 1990, pp. 41-54; E. DAL COVOLO, Ministeri e missio­ne..., pp. 123-136; ID., Laici e laicità nei primi secoli della Chiesa, «Rassegna di Teologia» 37 (1996), pp. 359-375.

 

[15]CLEMENT AL., Stromati 5,6,33,3, edd. O. STÄHLIN - L. FRÜCHTEL - U. TREU, GCS 524, pp. 347-348.

 

[16]ID., Pedagogo 1,7,58,1. 59,1, edd. H.I. MARROU - M. HARL, SC 70, Paris 1960, p. 214.

 

[17]See mostly G. OTRANTO, Il sacerdozio comune dei fedeli nei riflessi della 1 Petr. 2,9 (I e II secolo), «Vetera Christia­norum» 7 (1970), pp. 225-246.

 

[18]ORIGEN, Omelia sul Levitico 9,1, ed. M. BORRET, SC 287, p. 72. Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, «Voi siete stirpe eletta, sacerdozio regale, popolo santo...». Esegesi e catechesi nell'in­terpretazione origeniana di 1 Petri 2,9, in S. FELICI (cur.), Esegesi e catechesi nei Padri della Chiesa (secc. II-IV) (= Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 106), Rome 1993, pp. 85-95.

 

[19]ORIGEN, Contra Celsum 8,74, ed. M. BORRET, SC 150, Paris 1969, pp. 348-350.

 

[20]Vedi in particolare A. FAIVRE, I laici alle origini della chiesa (ed. francese, Paris 1984), Cinisello Balsamo 1986. But cfr. P. Siniscalco and my “prospective of synthesis” in E. DAL COVOLO, Chiesa Società Politica..., pp. 159-173.

 

[21]C. PIETRI, Prefazione, in E. DAL COVOLO, I Severi e il cristianesimo. Ricerche sull'ambiente storico-istituzionale delle origini cristiane tra il secondo e il terzo secolo (= Biblio­teca di Scienze Religiose, 87), Rome 1989, p. 6.

 

[22]For the related documentation, see E. DAL COVOLO, I Severi e il cristianesi­mo...; P. SINISCALCO, I laici nei primi secoli del cristianesimo, in P.S. VANZAN (cur.), Il laica­to nella Bibbia e nella storia (= Nuovi saggi, 2), Rome 1987, pp. 95-96.

 

[23]A.G. MARTIMORT, Nouvel examen de la "Tradition Apostolique" d'Hippolyte, «Bul­letin de Littérature Ecclésiastique» 88 (1987), pp. 5-25; ID., Encore Hippolyte et la "Tradition Apostolique", ibidem 92 (1991), pp. 133-137; M. METZGER, Enquêtes autour de la pretendue "Tradition Apostolique", «Ecclesia orans» 9 (1992), pp. 7-36; ID., A' propos des règlements ec­clésiastiques et de la prétendue Tradition Apostolique, «Revue des Sciences Religieuses» 66 (1992), pp. 249-261; A.G. MARTIMORT, Encore Hippolyte et la "Tradition Apostolique" (II), «Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique» 97 (1996), pp. 275-287; F. RUGGIERO, Celebrazione, effusione della grazia e annuncio nella Tradizione Apostolica, in E. MANICARDI - F. RUGGIE­RO (curr.), Liturgia ed evangelizzazione..., pp. 147-184.

 

[24]Cfr. M. SIMONETTI, Aggiornamento su Ippolito, in INSTITUTUM PATRISTICUM AUGUSTINIANUM (cur.), Nuove ricerche su Ippolito (= Studia Ephemeridis "Augustinianum", 30), Rome 1989, pp. 75-130 (in particular on the Tradizione Apostolica cfr. nota 160, pp. 127-128). The recent publication of the volume of A. BRENT, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (= Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 31), Leiden - New York - Köln 1995, sseems to suggest ulterior stimulus to research. However I feel that the thesis that are announced in the title will have difficulty to withstand the testimonies: see on this subject M. SIMONETTI, Una nuova proposta su Ippolito, «Augustinianum» 36 (1996), pp. 13-46. Cfr. finally J.-P. BOU­HOT, L'auteur romain des Philosophumena et l'écrivain Hippolyte, «Ecclesia Orans» 13 (1996), pp. 137-164.

 

[25]In greco cheirotonia. Cfr. C. VOGEL, Cheirotonie et Chirotésie. Importance et relati­vité de l'imposition des mains dans la collation des ordres, «Irénikon» 45 (1972), pp. 7-21. 207-238; G. KRETSCHMAR, Die Ordination im frühen Christentum, «Freiburger Zeitschrift für Phi­losophie und Theologie» 22 (1975), pp. 35-69; E. FERGUSON, Laying on of Hands: its Signifi­cance in Ordination, «Journal of Theological Studies» 26 (1975), pp. 1-12. On the theology of ordination from the beginning of the third century to the Council of Nicaea, cfr. J. LÉCUYER, Le sacrement de l'ordination. Recherche historique et théologique (= Théologie historique, 65), Paris 1983, pp. 28-59.

 

[26]PSEUDOHYPPOLIYUS, La Tradition Apostolique 3, ed. B. BOTTE, SC 11 bis, Paris 19842, pp. 42-46.

 

[27]M. SIMONETTI, Roma cristiana tra II e III secolo, «Vetera Christianorum» 26 (1989), pp. 135-136 (reprinted in ID., Ortodossia ed eresia tra I e II secolo [= Armarium. Biblioteca di storia e cultura religiosa, 5], Messina 1994, pp. 291-314).

 

[28]See ultimately U. FALESIEDI, Le diaconie. I servizi assistenziali nella Chiesa antica (= Sussidi Patristici, 7), Rome 1995, mostly pp. 51-55.

 

[29]PSEUDOHYPPOLIYUS, La Tradition Apostolique 4, ed. B. BOTTE, SC 11 bis, p. 52.

 

[30]See the quick and effective synthesis of P.F. BEATRICE, Storia della Chiesa An­tica, Turin 1991, pp. 67-73 (critical-bibliographic note, pp. 119-127).

 

[31]Cfr. B. STUDER, La teologia nella Chiesa imperiale (300-450), in ISTITUTO PATRI­STICO AUGUSTINIANUM (cur.), Storia della teologia..., pp. 305 ss.

 

[32]INNOCENZO I, Epistola 2,3, PL 20, c. 472.

 

[33]Cfr. K. BAUS - E. EWIG, L'epoca dei Concili (= Storia della Chiesa diretta da Hubert Jedin, 2) (ed. tedesca, Freiburg im Breisgau 1971), Milan 1972, pp. 295-315.

 

[34]Cfr., also for the reference to the various editions, A. TRAPÉ, Il sacerdote uomo di Dio..., pp. 16-17.

 

[35]See for example L. BOUYER, La spiritualità dei Padri (III-VI secolo). Monachesimo antico e Padri (= Storia della spiritualità, 3/B), Bologna 1986.

 

[36]Also O. PASQUATO, L'istituzione formativa del presbitero..., p. 278, to whom we refer also for the following considerations.

 

[37]ATHANASIUS, Vie d’Antoine, ed. G.J.M. BARTELINK, SC 400, Paris 1994, p. 178.

 

[38]AUGUSTINE, Sermone 355,2, Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana 34, Rome 1989, pp. 244-246.

 

[39]PAUL VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi 73, «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 68 (1976), p. 62.

 

[40]PDV 2, p. 659. For a comprehensive look on the whole spectrum of the history of the Church, see L. PACHOMIUS (cur.), I preti da 2.000 anni memoria di Cristo tra gli uomini, Casale Monf. 1991 (on the pareistic period in particular see the contribution of L. PADOVESE, Sacerdote in un «regno di sacerdoti» (Ap 1,6): riflessioni e testimonianze patristiche sul ministero ordinato, ibidem, pp. 85-151).

 

[41]PDV 5, p. 664.