THE DIACONATE IN THE AGES OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Pr. Prof. univ. dr. Constantin Rus
Theologia, Vol. 54/ nr. 1 (ian-mar)
Introduction
The five centuries from 100 to 600, or from Ignatius of Antioch to Gregory the Great, have been called the Golden Age of the diaconate. In this period deacons flourished in numbers and in importance. They oversaw the pastoral care of the Church. They were administrators of the Church’s charities. They had a major role in the Church’s liturgies. They were the great symbol of the servant ministry to which the Church has been called by Christ.
Councils in the early fourth century, such as Arles and Nicaea, demonstrate the importance of the diaconate by admonishing deacons to “keep within their proper bounds” as presbyters were growing in importance by assuming the functions of the pre-Nicene bishop. At Rome in the time of Pope Damasus, 366-384, Ambrosiaster could write his treatise “On the Boastfulness of Roman Deacons”. Jerome, writing in the late fourth or early fifth century, reports that presbyters at Rome are ordained only on recommendation of a deacon and are “less thought of”. Even the seventh century Council of Toledo, 633, finds it necessary to direct that in choir deacons “are not to raise themselves above the presbyters”. There is no doubt, as we shall see, that their very importance, coupled with the lack of any clear definition of their relationship to the presbyter, was a major factor in their decline.
It is when we move outside the New Testament, in the sub-apostolic age, that we see more clearly the character and function of the various offices within the Church as they underwent a transformation from the apostolic age. This change, however, is not to be considered simply a natural development in a human society. The charisma of the Holy Spirit was fully at work in the Church, guiding its development. Lampe reminds us,
“Though in one aspect, the change was due to the natural pressure of altered circumstances, it did not happened without the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit”.
1. The Diaconate in the Letter of Clement to the Church of Corinth
References to the diaconate outside the New Testament in the sub-apostolic age are relatively plentiful. The first of these, the letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth (c. 96), provides the only other reference generally assigned to the New Testament period mentioning bishops and deacons. This writing is of great importance, having been held in such esteem in antiquity that it was counted among Scriptures by the Syrian Church and appended to the biblical Codex Alexandrinus. Clement, the author, was listed by Irenaeus as the third bishop of Rome but he can better be described as one of the leading presbyters or, possibly, presbyter-bishops of Rome.
Cyril Richardson rightly points out that to call Clement the third bishop of Rome implies that the monepiscopate was already established at Rome, which is highly unlikely, since Clement himself refers to the Church rules both as bishops and as presbyters, using the terms interchangeably. Richardson believes that a hint in the Shepherd of Hermas may indicate that Clement acted as a “kind of foreign secretary for the Church”. He adds, “It must suffice to call him a leading – perhaps the leading – presbyter-bishop of the Roman Church”. Echlin calls Clement “a leading Roman presbyter”. Shepherd says that the Roman Church at this time was governed by a council of presbyters, which probably had a chairman appointed by seniority. There is much to be said for the interpretation of Walter Lowrie that in 1 Clement not all presbyters were bishops but only those appointed to liturgize.
Clement wrote anonymously but on behalf of the Church at Rome to help settle a controversy in which a group in the Corinthian Church had thrust their leaders out of office. He tells us that the Apostles:
“after receiving their orders and being fully convinced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and assumed by God’s word, went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit to preach the good news that God’s Kingdom was about to come. They preached in country and city, and appointed their first converts, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers”.
Clement further writes in reference to the office of bishop that the Apostles “appointed the officers we have mentioned. Furthermore, they later added a codicil to the effect that should these die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”. He also speaks of appointment being by the Apostles “or later on and with the whole church’s consent, by others of proper standing”. Clement calls the leaders of the Church at Corinth “bishops and deacons”, as we have seen, but he uses “presbyters” for these leaders elsewhere. While he does seem apparent that the terms “bishops” and “presbyters” are used here interchangeably, a careful reading of the text does not enable us to say that the “deacons” are in that category. In the light of what we know subsequently, it seems likely that Clement means to include them here as important leaders of the Corinthian Church but not the same as the presbyter-bishops.
Dom Gregory Dix sees in this letter the first Christian description of the way in which the Eucharist was performed. He renders his own translation of the pertinent lines:
“Unto the high-priest (= the celebrant-bishop) his special “liturgies” has been appointed, and to the priests (= presbyters) their special place is assigned, and on the levites (= deacons) their special “deaconings” are imposed; the layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. Let each of you, brethren, make Eucharist to God according to his own orders, keeping a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his “liturgy”.
However, this would seem to be reading back into Clement later thought. As we have seen, the Corinthian Church apparently had presbyter-bishops and deacons, but not yet the later threefold structure. The term “priest” was not yet applied to any Church official. The reference of Clement here would rather seem to be, when taken in context, to the order found in the religion of the Old Testament. He moves from that to speak of the order in the Church established by God through Jesus Christ.
As valuable as 1 Clement is, it does not shed any light upon the function of the deacon at that time. It does assert that apostolic authority and succession is to be transmitted in an orderly fashion by the direction of the Apostles through the proper appointment of the presbyter-bishops and deacons with the assent of the whole Church. We may see in this an apostolic succession for both the bishops and deacons.
2. The Diaconate in the Shepherd of Hermas
The Shepherd of Hermas, once widely red and considered Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Irenaeus, contains in its original section (c. 96) a reference showing the importance of the deacons in the life of the Church. In his vision Hermas sees a tower under construction as a symbol of the building of the triumphant Church. Some stones fit perfectly, others are rejected, as will be those in the Church who do not repent. Hermas writes:
“Now hear about the stones that go into the building. The stones that are square and white and fit their joints are the Apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons who have lived in the holiness of God, and have been bishops and teachers and deacons for God’s chosen in purity and reverence”.
Hermas again mentions deacons in one of the parables towards the end of his work. These are men who have betrayed the trust of their office. In his concern for repentance he writes:
“The ones that are spotted are deacons who served badly and plundered the living of widows and orphans, and made profit for themselves from the ministry they had accepted to perform. So if they persist in the same desire, they are dead and have no hope of life. But if they turn and perform their service purely, they will be able to live”.
The care for the poor and especially of widows and orphans was a special and major concern of the Church in the ancient world, and here as elsewhere the evidence shows that the deacons had direct responsibility in this work.
3. The Diaconate in the Didache
Though the date of the Didache is uncertain, its section on Church order, Chapters 6 to 15, seems to reflect the rural churches of Syria in the sub-apostolic age. It probably was originally a separate document dating from the late first century, which was placed with the first section and the last chapter and edited by a scribe in Alexandria c. 150.
Therefore, consideration of the Didache belongs in the sub-apostolic age, when primary leadership of the Church was undergoing a transformation from that of Apostles, apostolic delegates, prophets, and teachers to that of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The author of the Didache first discusses teachers, Apostles, and prophets in that order. He then writes:
“You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you”.
The clear implication here is that bishops and deacons are being added to the leadership of the Church for the same functions as had heretofore been rendered by the prophets and teachers alone. The admonition to give them honor along with the older form of prophets and teachers suggests that they are not yet considered on a par and entirely accepted by all. Further, whereas the prophets and teachers had been primarily charismatic, the bishops and deacons are apparently elected by the Church and commissioned through the laying on of hands. They too then are given the charisma of the Spirit but in a more orderly fashion. This commissioning through the laying on of hands is to be seen as the confirmation of the charisma given by the Spirit.
It is noteworthy that in the Didache the term “bishops” is used in the plural not the singular. Further, the bishops and deacons are lumped together and are said to fulfill the same function as the prophets and teachers did. Clearly, the office of bishop was not the same office as that of deacon, just as that of prophet was not the same as that of teacher. Rather, the mention of the two together may well have been due to their together constituting a ruling council for the local Church, though we cannot be certain.
Echlin argues from the next cited of the Didache that both bishops and deacons preached and taught as well as performing certain other functions. Brockman maintains, on the other hand, that deacons were chosen by the community for only a “catechetical role … to undertake the instruction of the faithful with edification”. He consistently avoids ascribing to deacons the role of preaching liturgically. In light of the evidence here and elsewhere it would seem likely that the bishops and not the deacons took over the prophets’ functions of presiding at the Eucharist, preaching, and teaching. It seems highly unlikely in view of the lack of the other evidence that deacons preached. The deacons would, as other sources indicate, have liturgical functions at the Eucharist in addition to their other functions. But it is important to remember that functions in the Church were not then so rigidly defined and “the official charismata of the early church were not then severally exclusive. Any individual could perform as many functions as his spiritual endowments allowed”.
4. The Diaconate in the Letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius is an exceptional figure of Christianity, “a man of intense devotion”, who lived and offered his episcopal ministry in the years of the so-called primitive Church.
Ecclesiastical History has only preserved a few biographical elements about Ignatius; most of them come from his own writings. But his Epistles are not historical-biographical texts. Thus, they contain only very few details about Ignatius.
From what we know he had been the second bishop of Antioch, starting his ministry at about 70 A.D. It is certain that he had met with some of the Apostles. The social environment in which he was brought up might have been Greek culture (this is a conclusion we reach by studying his writings).
During the years of the Roman persecution by Emperor Trajan, Ignatius was arrested and was brought to Rome in order to receive martyrdom. The common view today is that he was put to death at the Roman Stadium called Colosseum, sometimes between the years 107 and 117. He called himself “Theophorus”, which is a very distinctive title for Christians and means the “God-bearer”. The title signifies the close spiritual relationship that he had with Christ. His memory is commemorated in the Eastern Orthodox Church on 20th December and in the Roman on the first of February.
At his last days before he died he wrote seven Epistles. These are the follows: to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, to the Romans, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. The first four were written from Smyrna and the remaining three from Troas, in Asia Minor.
The Epistles of Ignatius, written at a relatively early data, “have played an important role in the theological reflections of the Church and represent a central point of contention in the scholarly discussions of Christian origins”. The significance of the Epistles is so great, basically because in them we find the first clear and direct reference to the threefold ministry and the settlement of the ecclesiastical authority, the centre of which is the bishop. These texts are of great importance to all of Christendom and because of them Ignatius has been acknowledged as “the first great theologian of the post-apostolic period and the first Father and Teacher of the Church.
In the Epistles which Ignatius, the martyr-bishop of Antioch, wrote as he journeyed from Syria to suffer his martyrdom in Rome in the reign of Trajan, 98-117, there emerge for the first time the clearly distinguishable orders of bishops, presbyters (or elders), and deacons. This picture represents a stage of development beyond that found in the Pastoral Epistles and I Clement. In the latter the local churches are governed by councils of officials, probably presbyters and/or presbyter-bishops, with deacons possibly being included in some places. These councils were subject to apostolic delegates such as Timothy and Titus.
But in the Ignatian Epistles the single bishop emerges as the leading figure in the Church. The Ignatian bishop represents the monepiscopate, a term denoting rule of the local church by a council of presbyters (possibly including deacons) over which one bishop presides. Though the Ignatian letters have often been thought to picture the monarchical episcopate in the churches of Asia Minor in the early years of the second century, the Asian bishop did not possess the autocratic authority implied by that term. Lemaire thinks the language of the Ignatian letters probably indicates that “the ministerial vocabulary first became fixed at Antioch and that the word episkopos has designated the president of the local Christian community”. He quotes K. A. Strand in seeing the struggle of the Church with heresy as a major reason for the development of the monepiscopate as it did at that time in the East. The monepiscopal Ignatian bishop was not a monarch ruling over the Church but rather was president of the community and of the presbyteral council, which possessed the authority to rule in the local church.
Ignatius uses the symbolism of the bishop as the type of God the Father, the presbyters as that of the college of the Apostles, and the deacons as Jesus Christ:
“Correspondingly, everyone must show the deacons respect. They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God’s council and an apostolic hand. You cannot have a Church without these”.
Dix sees here the same ordering of the Church in its Eucharistic assembly that he finds reflected in the Revelation. The “Church” which at this time was never thought of in terms of a building, was arranged so that the bishop sat at the front in a chair covered by a white linen cloth facing the people across the altar. The presbyters were seated in a semicircle on either side of the bishop. Two of the deacons stood beside the bishop with the others either at the front of the congregation or scattered through it.
The subdeacons and acolytes assisted the deacons and guarded the doors. Other members, men on one side and women on the other, faced the bishop with the catechumens and visitors at the back. Dix believes this arrangement was adopted by the end of the first century, because it is reflected in the vision of the heavenly assembly in the Revelation, which he dates c. 93. Whether or not Dix is correct in this early date, and some details such as the presence of subdeacons and acolytes by Dix’s own testimony do not come until later, the general arrangement pictured is that of the universal practice as it shortly came to be and reflects both the nature of the Church and the character of its offices which continued throughout the pre-Nicene period.
In Ignatius’s Epistle to the Trallians we find specific references to the liturgical function of the deacons at the Eucharist: “Those too who are deacons of Jesus Christ’s “mysteries” must give complete satisfaction to everyone. For they do not serve mere food and drink, but minister to God’s Church”. In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of being “stewards of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. 4, 1; cf. 1 Cor. 2, 7; 13, 2; 14, 2). Though the Greek word “mystery”, used here, generally refers to sacred rites, and Christians later applied it to the sacraments, Paul uses it rather to mean secret knowledge of God’s plan revealed in the gospel. Thus, Ignatius’s use of “mysteries” in connection with the deacons would not itself be sufficient to infer liturgical function. However, his statement that the deacons “minister to God’s Church” when set beside his contrast to their not merely serving food and drink, a probable reference to the Christian “agape” or “fellowship meal”, does indicate their participation in the Eucharist liturgically. Ignatius uses the terms “Eucharist” and “agape” to denote the same type of the assembly, both describing the entire service of worship. Conclusive evidence for the separation of the Eucharist and the agape into independent gatherings comes, at least in the East, only at the end of the second century.
It is also probable that Ignatius’s exhortation to a single Eucharist implies a liturgical function for the deacons:
“Be careful then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbyters and deacons, my fellow slaves”.
The admonition to “a single Eucharist” here is probably due to separate Eucharists held by a group of Judaizers. But this mention of “one flesh”, “one cup”, “one altar”, and “one bishop”, all being an integral part of the Eucharist, would clearly indicate that along with the “one bishop”, “the presbyters and deacons”, who are his “fellow slaves”, also have a prominent place in the Eucharist.
It has been asserted that deacons are said to preach in Ignatius’s epistles. In one of the texts cited Ignatius writes:
“Consequently, it would be a nice thing for you, as a church of God, to elect a deacon to go there [Antioch] on a mission, as God’s representative, and at a formal service to congratulate them and glorify the Name”.
The function of this deacon would, however, seem to be that of a special representative or ambassador to the Church of Antioch. In the light of no other evidence it seems unlikely that the phrase “glorify the Name is a reference to preaching. Echlin refers to another passage in Philadelphians to support diaconal preaching in the Ignatian epistles, though a fair translation of the passage will not bear this interpretation. Richardson renders the text, “Now about Philo, the deacon from Cilicia. He is well spoken of and right now he is helping me in God’s cause…”. Echlin bases his argument on a translation which runs, “Philo … is at present giving me his help in preaching God’s word. Other authorities do not support this reading. It must be concluded that there is insufficient evidence in these letters to maintain that preaching was a function of the diaconate in these writings.
It is sometimes assumed that the deacon’s position as seen in the writings of Ignatius was that of assistant to the bishop, as the latter emerged a single figure in the monepiscopate. It is true that at times they did act in this capacity. Philo, the Cilician deacon, was helping Ignatius at the time he wrote to the Philadelphians; but in the same sentence we are told that so was Rheus Agathopus, which is described as “a choice person” and is apparently not a deacon. Ignatius asks the Church of Ephesus to let their deacon, Burrhus, whom he describes as “my fellow slave”, remain with him. But Burrhus is said to be a deacon of the Church at Ephesus, not of the Bishop, and his position seems incidental to the request. The position of the deacon in these letters appears to be that of a servant of the Church, who naturally at times acts to assist its leading officer.
However, the most striking aspect of Ignatius’s epistles regarding the place of the deacon in the Church is his reference to their symbolizing Jesus Christ. Ignatius at this point refers to the bishop as a figure of God the Father and the presbyters as symbolizing the apostolic council. He then says, “Let the deacons (my special favorites) be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ who was with the Father from eternity and appeared at the end (of the world). In a similar context, as we have noted before, he writes that they are to be respected because “they represent Jesus Christ”. Ignatius can think in these terms and use this order with the deacons in the third place yet representing Jesus Christ because ministerial order was not conceived by him or others in terms of status or rank but rather of function. So long as we think in categories of rank and status we cannot understand the development of these orders in the ancient Church. The office of the deacon, though mentioned third, is not inferior but is in fact that of Christ himself.
It is because of the high esteem in which the deacon was held that he may have been included in the governing council and was mentioned at one point along with the bishop and presbyters as among those to whom obedience is to be given. The basic concern of Ignatius is for the unity of the Church as he writes:
“Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbyters as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard the Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes”.
It is also to be noted that in view of the functional nature of the offices, the respected place of the deacon, and the liturgical function already possessed by the deacons, it is entirely conceivable that the bishop could have authorized a deacon to preside at the Eucharist when he was unable to be present at this early time.
From his epistles, we can conclude:
The purpose of the various diaconal references in Ignatius’ epistles
It is true that the Epistles of Ignatius are full of references to the diakonos and to the diaconal function in the early Church. But it is also true that those references do not constitute the central theme in any of the Epistles. The diaconal theme appears in these texts as part of the greater discussion concerning the ecclesiastical authority and the threefold ministry. Diaconal references may be found in all Epistles except that addressed to the Romans.
For the first time in the history of the Church the three ranks of priesthood are clearly mentioned together, in exactly the sale order as we know them today. The deacon is placed on the lowest level, or on the first rank of the Christian ministry, while presbyteros is on the second and the episkopos on the third and obviously the highest. Ignatius is very clear on this matter of the Church ministry. He makes a great contribution to the Ecclesiastical History by:
1. offering the names of the titles of the three officers (diakonos, presbyteros, episkopos);
2. presenting their functions, liturgical and pastoral, as they are found in his time;
3. making the point that they are different in function and distinct among themselves;
4. interpreting the threefold Church ministry as the earthly and visible ministry which resembles the heavenly prototype; and
5. emphasizing the idea of unity of the Church, in accordance with the unity experienced within the Holy Trinity;
Ignatius firmly believes that deacons, presbyters and bishops are “appointed according to the will of Jesus Christ”. He supports the view that deacons, presbyters and bishops are definitely a separate category of people, called to minister to the faithful. With his “prophetic voice” Ignatius calls the lay people to pay attention to them. Therefore it becomes quite clear that the diaconal references in Ignatius are obviously offered as part of his theory of the ecclesiastical authority and the Christian ministry.
(b) Episkopos – Diakonos relationship according to Ignatius
There are many interesting passages in Ignatius’ Epistles, where references may be found to the spiritual and even pastoral and liturgical relationship between the bishop and deacon. Some of them are symbolic, others are realistic.
The bishop Ignatius calls the deacons his “fellow slaves”, and this is obviously a very important symbolic expression, which shows how highly the bishop regarded his deacons. The word “syndoulos” means that they are both (bishop and deacons) following the same spiritual path; they believe and follow the same Christ and to Him they are both spiritually answerable.
The deacon is “subject to the bishop”. A big discussion could open here. In our case we prefer only to point out some of the questions. Which are the areas in which the deacon is subject to the bishop? Is it on the administrative level? Is it connected to the pastoral work and responsibility that the deacon might have had? Or is it related to the diaconal liturgical function? The actual fact is that the deacon in all these Ignatian writings seems to have been an “assistant to the bishop”. He does the will of the bishop as Jesus did the will of the Father. At the same time he is regarded by Ignatius as “most dear to him”, who has been “entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ”.
According to W. R. Schoedel, “There is an especially close bond between bishop and deacon in Ignatius. He interprets this relationship by suggesting that:
“This may reflect an earlier stage in the development of the ministry when these two offices had not yet merged with the presbyterate. But other factors probably suffice to explain the special attention given to deacons by Ignatius: their active role in practical matters; in particular, their service to Ignatius personally; and a special concern on Ignatius’ part to support those whose position sometimes put them in difficult situation”.
As far as the relationship between deacon and the presbyters is concerned there is only one reference in Ignatius’ writings, where the deacon appears to be responsible to the presbytery. This relationship has not been defined very well “presumably because this is not essential mark of the office”.
(c) Diakonos: model of Christ
Edward R. Hardy, “The Deacon in History and Practice, in The Diaconate Now, ed. Richard T. Nolan, Washington: Campus Books, 1968, p. 15; Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, Staten Island, New York, Alba House, 1971, p. 25, 57, refers to the golden age of the diaconate as being from Ignatius to Nicaea. Though the decline begins in the fourth century, the diaconate continues to flourish long after.
Canon 18, Nicaea, in A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the Church to A. D. 337, ed. J. Stevenson, New York, Macmillan, 1957, p. 363.
S. L. Greenslade, “Introduction:, to Letter 14 of Jerome, in Early Latin Theology, trans. S. L. Greenslade, in Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1956, vol. 5, p. 286.
Jerome, Epistle 146, 2, in Early Latin Theology, vol. 5, p. 388. The translator dates this letter after 388 (vol. 5, p. 383-384). The evidence might suggest c. 400. Jerome died in 419 or 420 (vol. 5, p. 286).
Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents. A.D. 451 to A.D. 680, trans. William R. Clark in A History of the Councils of the Church, Edimburgh, T and T Clark, 1895, vol. 4, 1895, p. 454.
G. W. H. Lampe, Some Aspects of the New Testament Ministry, London, S.P.C.K., 1949, p. 20 (hereafter cited as N. T. Ministry).
C. D. F. Moule, “Deacons in the New Testament”, in Theology, 58, London, 1955, p. 407.
Berthold Altaner, Patrology, trans. Hilda C. Graef, New York, Herder and Herder, 1960, p. 99.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3, 3., in vol. 1: Early Christian Fathers, in Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1953, p. 372. Irenaeus also says that Clement, along with many others still alive, had known the apostles and had “their traditions before his eyes”, vol. 1, p. 373.
Cyril C. Richardson, “The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, Commonly called Clement’s First Letter – Introduction”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 36-37.
Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, p.14.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Smyrna in the Ignatian Letters: A Study in the Church Order”, in Journal of Religion, 20 (1940), p. 156 (hereafter cited “Ignatian Letters”). Cf. C. Richardson, “Clement”, p. 39.
Walter Lowrie, The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times, New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1904, p. 341-350. Lowrie, however, is probably not correct in arguing that the term “presbyter” (“elder”) in 1 Clement does not denote an office (p. 348-352) except when they are called “appointed presbyters”.
I Clement 44, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 63/64.
I Clement 42, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 62.
I Clement 44, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 63/64.
I Clement 44, 47, 57, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 63/65, 69.
Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, Westminster, Dacre Press, 1945, p. 1. (Reference is to 1 Clement 40 and 41).
I Cement 42, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 62-63.
Echlin argues that since deacons were associated with the bishops “both in their ministry and in their expulsion, we may conclude that the diaconal function involved ministry of liturgy and charity”. His reference is to 1 Clement 44, but this has nothing to say at all about liturgical function.
Bo Reicke, “Deacons in the New Testament and in the Early Church”, in The Ministry of Deacons, ed. Department of Faith and Order, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1965, p. 11.
Edgar J. Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature, rev. and enlarged, Robert M. Grant, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1966, p. 32 (hereafter cited Early Christian Literature).
The first section of the Shepherd, Visions 1-4 (in Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers / An American Translation, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1950), probably was written during the last years of the leadership of Clement of Rome, which ended in 97 (see Goodspeed, Early Christian Literature, p. 30-34). Cf. Johannes Quasten, vol. I: Beginnings of Patristic Literature, in Patrology, Westminster, Md., Newman Press, 1950, p. 92-93.
Hermas, Shepherd, Vision 3, 5, 1, in Goodspeed, Apostolic Fathers, p. 112.
The second section of Hermas, Shepherd, Vision 5 through the end, is to be dated in the second century a few years after the first, though Parables 9 and 10 may be still later additions. Goodspeed and Grant’s (Early Christian Literature, p. 30-34) argument for this dating and against the time of Pius I (140-155) is to be preferred.
Hermas, Shepherd, Parable 9, 26, 2, in Goodspeed, Apostolic Fathers, p. 193.
Cyril C. Richardson, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 162-165.
Didache 11-13, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 176-178.
Didache 15, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 178.
Reginald Fuller, Early Catholicism in the New Testament, lectures at the Graduate School of Theology, Sewanee, Tn., 1970. Cf. W. Lowrie, The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times, p. 331-342.
Reginald Fuller, Early Catholicism.
W. Lowrie, The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times, p. 342.
Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, p. 17.
Norbert Brockman, Ordained to Service> A Theology of the Permanent Diaconate, Hicksville, New York, Exposition Press, 1976, p. 21.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr.,”Ignatian Letters”, p. 154.
Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin Books, London, 1988, p. 30.
S. Papadopoulos, Patrology, vol. I, Athens, 1982, p. 178. E. W. Barnes, The Rise of Christianity, London, 1948, p. 261, believes that “the story of the martyrdom of Ignatius is edifying legend, not contemporary history”, suggesting that this is “the invention of a hagiographer”, because “of Ignatius himself little is known”.
P. Chrestou, “Ignatious”, in Threskeutike kai Ethike Enkyklopedeia, vol. VI, Athens, 1965, p. 705.
M. W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, Apollos-Leicester, 1989, p. 80.
W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 1.
D. Balanos, Patrology, Athens, 1930, p. 43 ff.
S. Papadopoulos, Patrology, p. 178.
Eusebius dates the martyrdom of Ignatius at 107 in his Chronicles, fn. Church History 3, 36, in vol. I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, Oration in Praise of Constantine, trans. and ed. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Father of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 14 vols., Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952, p. 169. However, modern scholars generally agree only that he was martyred in Rome in the reign of Trajan (98-117); Kirsopp Lake, “Introduction to the Epistles of Ignatius”, in The Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press, 1912, p. 166; Cyril Richardson, “Introduction to the Letters of Ignatius”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 75.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Ministry, Christian”, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick, New York, Abingdon Press, 1962, vol. III, p. 391. Cf. C. Richardson, “Introduction to the Letters of Ignatius”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 76.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Ignatian Letters”, p. 142.
Cyril Richardson, “Introduction to the Letters of Ignatius”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 76. Reginald Fuller (Early Catholicism) sees the same development and the emergence of the monepiscopate in Ignatius.
E.g., Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, trans. Frank Clarke, London, SCM Press Ltd., 1961, p. 154; Hans Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, vol. I: The Beginnings of the Christian Church; vol. II: The Founding of the Church Universal (bound together), trans. Bertram Lee Wolf, New York, The World Publishing Co., Meridian Books, 1961, vol. II, p. 58; and John Knox, The Early Church and the Coming Great Church, New York and Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1955, p. 121.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Ignatian Letters”, p. 141.
André Lemaire, “The Ministries in the New Testament: Recent Research”, in Biblical Theology Bulletin, III, 2, June, 1973, p. 145.
André Lemaire, “The Ministries in the New Testament”, p. 145-146.
Ignatius, Trallians 3, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 99; cf. Ignatius, Magnesians 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 95.
Dix points out that the word “church” means “invariably … the solemn assembly for the liturgy, and by extension those who have a right to take a part in this” until the third century. (G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p. 20). Cf. Reginald H. Fuller, “Church”, in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson, New York, Macmillan, 1951, p. 46.
G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p. 28.
Dix may have intended rather that the general arrangement was adopted by the end of the first century, since he states later (Shape of the Liturgy, p. 35), that the “minor orders” came into existence by the end of the second century.
Cyril, Richardson, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 99.
Ignatius, Trallians 2, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 99.
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New York, Harper and Harper Row, 1968, p. 99-100 (hereafter cited I Corinthians).
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Ignatian Letters”, p. 149.
Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, p. 21.
Ignatius, Philadelphians 4, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 108.
Cyril Richardson, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 108 fn.
Urban T. Holmes III, The Future Shape of Ministry: A Theological Projection, New York, Seabury Press, 1971, p. 25 (hereafter cited Future Shape). Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, p. 21.
Ignatius, Philadelphians 10, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 111.
Ignatius, Philadelphians 11, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 111.
Edward Echlin, The Deacon in the Church Past and Future, p. 21.
See Gerald G. Walsh, “The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch”, in vol. I: The Apostolic Fathers, in The Fathers of the Church, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M. F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, New York, Cima Publishing Co., 1947, vol. I, p. 117, which reads “ministering in the word of God”. A similar reading is found in vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations and Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Amer. reprint ed. A. Cleveland Coxe, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956, vol. I, p. 85: “… who still minister to me in the word of God”.
Cyril Richardson, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 76.
Ignatius, Philadelphians 11, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 111.
Ignatius, Ephesus 2, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 88.
Ignatius, Magnesians 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 95.
Ignatius, Trallians 3, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 99.
Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., “Ignatian Letters”, p. 158.
Ignatius, Smyrneans 8, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 115. Cf. Ignatius, Polycarp 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, p. 119.
A. D. Salapatas, “The Diaconate in the Eastern Orthodox Church”, in Diaconal Ministry, Past, Present and Future, ed. Peyton G. Craighill, Rhode Island, 1994, p. 41.
Ignatius, Trallians 3, 1; 7, 2; Smyrneans 8, 1; Polycarp 6, 1.
Ignatius, Magnesians, 6, 1, Trallians 2 and 3, 1.
According to Hans von Campenhausen, “Just as Christ was united to his Father, so must Christians be subject to their presbyters and deacons and all of them to the bishop…” (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, London, p. 100.
J. R. Wright, “The Emergence of the Diaconate”, in Liturgy (Journal of the Liturgical Conference), vol. 2, No 4, Washington D.C., 1982, p. 20.
Ignatius, Ephesus 2, “syndoulos”, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 88.
Ignatius, Magnesians 2, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 90.
James M. Barnett, The Diaconate. A Full and Equal Order, New York, 1981, p. 50.
Ignatius, Magnesians 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 95.
Ignatius, Magnesians 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 95.
Ignatius, Magnesians 6, in Early Christian Fathers, vol. I, p. 95.
W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters, p. 46.
W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters, p. 46.
J. V. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources, New York-Oxford, 1990, p. 240.