Enrico dal Covolo

PRIESTS LIKE OUR FATHERS

The Fathers of the Church teachers of priestly formation

PRIESTS LIKE OUR FATHERS

The Fathers of the Church teachers of priestly formation

SUMMARY

CHAPTER ONE

Methodological and bibliographical indications

CHAPTER TWO

The Antiochene tradition: from Ignatius to John Chrysostom

CHAPTER THREE

The Alexandrine tradition: Origen

CHAPTER FOUR

Perspective of synthesis: formation of the presbyter in the first centuries of the Church

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE

Methodological and bibliographical indications^[1]

1. Introduction to the theme, with reference to Pastores dabo vobis (PDV)

Concerning priestly formation, reference to the origins of the Church is not only useful, but absolutely “obligatory”. In fact, due to its chronological proximity to Christ and the apostles, the Church of the early times is a privileged witness to the formative relationship that Jesus established with his disciples, and which the Church must always refer back to in order to understand the true meaning of presbyteral formation.^[2]

In fact, the reference to the Fathers of the Church as teachers of priestly formation is implicit in many pages of the Apostolic Exhortation On the Formation of Priests in the Circumstances of the Present Day (PDV), and also explicitly present, in particular in the citations of Saint Augustine (eleven) and various other Fathers (Cyprian, Beda).

Furthermore, speaking of the theological formation of the presbyter, the Exhortation affirms that the studying of the Word of God, «soul of all theology», must be guided by the reading of the Fathers of the Church and the pronouncements of the Magisterium.^[3]

However, I do not intend to limit myself to reviewing and analyzing the patristic citations in the PDV. I prefer to reflect on the underlying issue, which in the end submits to those citations, and that is: in what sense are the Fathers of the Church teachers of priestly formation?

We will proceed in this reflection examining separately the two facets of the question. First of all, we will look at the subject of priestly formation in the Fathers of the Church (this is the most important subject of these pages, which we will return to in subsequent chapters, choosing some of the more important texts for comment and reflection); we will then examine the study of the Fathers in the formation of the presbyterate (this is not a marginal issue, especially for those involved, in one way or another, in the problems of organizing the course work in the seminaries and theological institutes).

2. Priestly formation in the Fathers of the Church. The example of Bishop Ambrose

A few months prior to the Synod dedicated to priestly formation (September-October 1990), the Faculty of Christian and Classical Letters of the Salesian University (Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis) celebrated a Convention on the theme: “Formation to the ministerial priesthood in the catechesis and life witness of the Fathers” (Rome, 15-17 March 1990).^[4]

The Convention intended to offer the Synodal Assembly a qualified scientific contribution in an historical-catechetical perspective. Its Acts appeared in 1992 in a volume which remains fundamental in outlining various aspects of priestly formation in the Fathers of the Church.^[5] We wish to offer a taste here, choosing as a reference point Bishop Ambrose of Milan (337 or 339-397) and two reports devoted to him: those of G. Coppa and of J. Janssens.

The report of G. Coppa^[6] - extremely comprehensive and articulate - systematically revisits the life and work of Ambrose, in order to highlight the more prominent needs of human, spiritual and pastoral formation of the presbyter.

These needs prove rich in theological content and practical guidelines and should be contextualized in a vision of the priesthood that offers several precise characteristics.

It is a Christic vision, as is moreover the orientation of all the Ambrosian work. Christ is the true Levite, who communicates his priesthood to the entire church, and specifically to the presbyters, who in turn must therefore live as if consumed by him, love him, imitate him, present his image to the faithful, give his life. If Christ is the verus levites, the presbyter is also levita verus, engaged in an unrelenting struggle against himself and the spirit of the world, in order to be – like him – belonging totally to God.

It is a totalitarian vision: Eucharistic communion, humility, obedience to the bishop, perfect chastity and oblation of self are expressions of this love for Christ, which does not allow for compromises or accommodations.

It is a communitarian vision: the formation of the presbyterate has a cosmic breath and is inserted in the mystery of the Church. The spiritual life for Ambrose is openness to the needs of the world, not being closed in on oneself: the priest is a man who lives for others, he keeps nothing for himself, and therefore he seeks holiness not only for himself, but for the enrichment of the entire ecclesial community.

It is a practical vision: Ambrose does not understand the presbyter as an unreal “angelic creature”, but as a Christian who possesses solid human virtues, according to the Ciceronian model of ancient morality, elevated and Christianized by the practice of the Gospel.

Finally, it is a dynamic vision: the priest must become holy through the practice, rich in zeal, of the munera which the Church entrusted to him by means of the bishop, that is, through the celebration of the Eucharist and of the Word of God.

Just as he is consumed by Christ, the priest is consumed by souls: pastoral care absorbs all of his time, all of his physical, intellectual, spiritual and even economic resources, without allowing him to think much about his own needs. His pastoral duties, however, are not limited solely to the area of worship and rituals, but involve the formation of the presbyter in the constant practice of charity, requiring he live a life that is simple, poor and disinterested.^[7]

We, for our part, could add a complementary reflection.

With his own life Ambrose offers the clearest example of the various instances of the formation and mission of the presbyter. How much this witness must have effected the conversion of Augustine and ultimately his formation as priest and pastor can be seen from some famous passages of the Confessions.^[8]

Having recently arrived in Milan – we are in the autumn of 384 - Augustine, a young eloquent professor, goes to visit the various leaders of the city, and also meets with the bishop Ambrose. Our source narrates that Ambrose receives him satis episcopaliter (with episcopal kindness). It is a rather mysterious adverb: what did Augustine mean to say? Probably that Ambrose welcomed him with the dignity befitting a bishop, with paternity, but also with some detachment.

It is certain that Augustine was fascinated by Ambrose; but it is also true that a one on one meeting on what interested Augustine most, that is, on the fundamental problems in the search for the truth, was put off day after day, to the point that someone was able to assert that Ambrose was very cold towards Augustine, and that he had little or nothing to do with his conversion.

And yet Ambrose and Augustine met with one another on several occasions. However, Ambrose maintained their discussion on general topics, limiting himself for example to singing the praises of Monica, and congratulating the son on such a mother.

When Augustine would then go especially to see Ambrose, he repeatedly found him busy with crowds of people filled with problems, to whose infirmities he devoted himself; or, when he was not with them (and this was true for very short periods of time), he was either refreshing his body with necessary food, or nourishing his mind with reading.

And here Augustine is amazed, because Ambrose read the Scriptures without opening his mouth, only using his eyes. In fact, in the first Christian centuries reading was conceived strictly for the purpose of proclamation, and reading out loud facilitated comprehension also for the person reading: that Ambrose could glance over the pages with only his eyes, suggested to the impressed Augustine a unique capacity to know and understand the Scriptures.

Augustine often sat to the side discreetly observing Ambrose; then, not daring to disturb him, he would leave in silence. “Thus”, Augustine concluded, “I could find no opportunity of putting the questions I desired to that holy oracle of thine in his heart, unless it was a matter which could be dealt with briefly. However, those surgings in me required that he should give me his full leisure so that I might pour them out to him; but I never found him so”.^[9]

They are very serious words: so much so that it would cause one to doubt Ambrose’s pastoral concern and his genuine care for the people.

Instead, I am convinced that Ambrose’s behavior in Augustine’s regard was an authentic strategy, and that it effectively represents the figure of Ambrose, pastor and formator.

Ambrose is certainly aware of Augustine’s spiritual situation, above all because he enjoyed the confidences and full trust of Monica. The bishop does not yet feel it is opportune to enter into a dialectic debate, from which he, Ambrose, could also have come out the loser…

Thus, the bishop postpones his words, allowing the facts to speak, and with this praxis affirms the primacy of the pastor’s “being” over “speaking”.

What are these facts?

First of all, there was the witness of Ambrose’s life, interwoven in prayer and service to the poor. Augustine is positively impressed, because Ambrose proves to be a man of God and a man totally donated at the service of the faithful. The prayer life and charity, shown by this formidable pastor, take the place of words and human reasoning.

The other fact that speaks to Augustine is the witness of the Milanese Church. It is a Church strong in faith, gathered as a single body in the holy assemblies of which Ambrose is the animator and teacher, thanks also to the psalms which he wrote; a Church that was capable of resisting the demands of Emperor Valentiniano and of his mother Justina, who in the first days of 386 had come back to demand the confiscation of a church for the Arian ceremonies.

Augustine recounts how in the church that was supposed to be confiscated, the devout kept vigil during the night, ready to die with their bishop. “We too” – and this witness from the Confessions is precious, because it shows that something was stirring deep within Augustine – “even though still spiritually tepid, participated in the excitement of all the people”.^[10]

Thus, even though Augustine was not able to dialogue as he would have liked with Bishop Ambrose, he remained positively infected by his life, his spirit of prayer, the charity he showed towards his neighbor and by the fact that Ambrose proves to be man of the Church: he sees him dedicated in the animation of the liturgy, he grasps his courageous plan of building a Church that is united and mature.

In this way Augustine finds in Bishop Ambrose’s witness an authentic “school of formation” and a model of priest and pastor.^[11]

A stimulating study by J. Janssens was performed on a particular aspect of G. Coppa’s research, concerning the subject of verecundia or «dignified conduct» in Saint Ambrose’s De officiis [ministrorum].^[12]

Starting from a comprehensive comparison between the De officiis of Cicerone and the Ambrosian treatise of the same name, Janssens concentrates his analysis on the subject mentioned.

In fact, both Cicerone and Augustine considered the verecundia as an integral part of the formation of the youth, of the citizens and the clerics respectively. According to Janssens, the value Saint Ambrose gave to outer decorum is comparable with his concept of Christian conduct, characterized by truth and simplicity. What is important is to be a true and loyal man “on the inside”, and this translates consequently into conduct that is dignified and natural.

The rules proposed by the bishop from Milan are not dependent upon worldly appearances, which would attempt to hide ones true inner reality in order to fool others: on the contrary, they contribute to highlighting the intimate riches of the person. Furthermore, - if Ambrose establishes a certain type of conduct for his clerics, and thus assumes the rules of conduct in use in the patrician environment of the Ciceronian time – we must add that he intends them to be animated by an Evangelical spirit. It is the soul, it is the spirit, that establishes the nature, the character of a rule of conduct.

The decorum which Cicero speaks of, which includes the fundamental virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, and the same sophrosyne of the Greeks, even though they are at the basis of the Ambrosian treatise, receive from the biblical inspiration of the holy bishop a special spiritual connotation, which makes the verecondia an essential component of the formation of the clerics.^[13]

3. The study of the Fathers in the formation of the presbyter

To the second aspect of the question under consideration, the recent Instruction on the Study of the Fathers of the Church in the formation of priests (= IPC) of the Congregation for Catholic Education intended to offer a punctual response.

The document – which is dated 10 November 1989, feast of Saint Leo the Great – was presented in the Vatican News Room by Mgr. J. Saraiva Martins, Secretary of the Congregation. The text of his intervention, also signed by the Prefect, Cardinal W. Baum, illustrates the basic concerns that led to the drafting of the IPC, specifically the search for the causes and remedies of that “lack of interest” in the Fathers that seems to have characterized the post-councilor period.

It alludes to the perplexities of a certain theology, so intent on the urgent problems of the present that it overlooks the importance of looking to Christian tradition. It also criticizes an approach to the Fathers that – overly confident in the historical-critical method and little attentive to the spiritual and doctrinal values of the patristic magisterium – in the end proves to be dangerous, or even hostile, to the full understanding of the early Christian writers. However, the gravest responsibility is attributed to the “dominant contemporary cultural climate of the natural sciences, technology and pragmatism, in which the humanistic culture rooted in the past is always more marginalized”: in many cases “there seems today to be lacking a true sensitivity to the values of early Christianity, as well as an adequate knowledge of the classical languages.”

Ultimately, patristics is “impacted by the tensions between old and new, between opening and closing, between stability and progress, between a predominantly technological world and a world that continues to believe in the spiritual values of Christian humanism”.^[14]

It follows that the stakes are very high: the “slightest interest” in the Fathers could actually be the sign of a guilty compromise between current theology and a culture invalidated by secularism and technologism.

Thus – presented with a document which goes straight to the heart of a debate that by now is unavoidable - the reaction of the theologian and pastor can only be to receive it with attention and gratitude, as if presented with a long-awaited gift: a gift that is all the more precious, in that not only are its recipients generously rewarded, but it also obliges them to “put to use the talents” they have received – that is, to elaborate the magisterial message, and grasp its implications, and above all to render it operational -.

We say above all, because the weight of the document itself is “down by the stern”, in some conclusive measures which in certain respects revolutionize the teaching of patristics.

First of all, its duration in the institutional theological cycle should last “for at least three semesters with two hours a week minimum”.^[15] More generally speaking, again according to Bishop Saraiva Martins, “clear demands are placed on both the students and the Professors, requiring a specific preparatory course taken in specialized Patristic Institutes. In this regard, we are pleased to mention two Institutes founded at a certain point in Rome by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI: the Pontifical Superior Institute of Latin Studies of the Pontifical Salesian University and the Patristic Institute “Augustinianum” affiliated with the Pontifical Lateran University. Both institutes have for some time been carrying out, in accordance with their aims, a commendable scientific and formative activity, which has greatly contributed to the exploration and spreading of patristic thought, and could effectively help the bishops and other ecclesiastical superiors in the faithful application of the present Instructions”.^[16]

At this point the Salesian University and the Pontifical Superior Institute of Latinità could not escape an original scholarly contribution, intended to favor the reception of the IPC and its principles. Pursuant to their acceptance, a miscellaneous volume of comments on the magisterial text was born.^[17]

It consists of eight contributions written by the same number of professors of the Faculty of Theology and the Institute of Latinità (Faculty of Christian and Classical Letters) of the Salesian University.

The book opens with a reflection of E. dal Covolo on the nature of patristic studies and their objectives, commenting on numbers 49-52 of the IPC. The author, while pointing out in the document “a decisive and authoritative step ahead in the recognition and definition of the disciplinary and methodological autonomy of patristic studies”, suggests some lines of reasoning complimentary to the text being examined, in hopes of a more articulated and comprehensive dialogue with followers of Christian antiquity.^[18]

The next article by F. Bergamelli, which deals with the method in the study of the Fathers, continues the commentary referring above all to numbers 53-56 of IPC, yet also extends the analysis to other references that the document dedicates to the same question. The author renounces out of necessity an exhaustive discourse on the empistemological statute of patristic studies, but offers abundant prospects and orientations to expand and deepen the magisterial reflection.^[19]

The same analytical-integrative design is assumed by O. Pasquato in revisiting the relationship between patristic studies and historic disciplines outlined in the IPC, above all in number 60. In the first part, the contribution offers a brief look at the comprehensive role of the historical sciences with respect to patristic studies; the second part, more analytical, considers the peculiar contribution of each historical discipline to the study of patristics.^[20]

With respect to the first three articles, the subsequent interventions seem to choose the path of reflecting “around” the IPC, or “on the occasion” of same, without wanting to tie directly to the commentary or integration of specific paragraphs.

Consequently, the contribution of A. Amato takes on a central issue of the document; that of the mutual service between study of the Fathers and dogmatic theology. Amato presents a vivid outline of the global context within which the relative magisterial contribution is found.^[21]

R. Iacoangeli also adopts the same methodical approach, defining the classical “humanitas” as “praenunita aurora” to the teaching of the Fathers. His exposition is a passionate appeal – accompanied by appropriate illustrations - to the study of culture and classical languages, as an indispensable condition to a fruitful approach to the patristic message.^[22]

The same discussion on the importance of philosophical and literary studies follows in the subsequent article by S. Felici: he also recognizes in linguistic and literary competence the “technical” instrument for deciphering the writings of the Fathers.^[23]

For his part, A.M. Triacca, considering the use of patristic “passages” in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, on the one hand recognizes in the lectura Patrum an irreplaceable aid to sentire cum Ecclesia, consistent with the discipline incorporated in the liturgy of the hours; on the other hand he finds in the liturgy a formidable key to understanding and assimilating the thought and spirituality of the Fathers, according to a petition received and shared by the conciliar magisterium.^[24]

Finally, M. Maritano, outlines the situation of patristic students in the nineteenth century providing a precious bibliographic guide which – although concentrating mainly on last century, when new historic and cultural circumstances favored a rediscovery of patristic tradition – it, in fact, extends to the present.^[25]

Thus, the last two studies conclude the volume relaunching the research, while also encouraging the scholar to take to heart the recent teaching on science and history.

We believe that these eight contributions can together provide a fairly good x-ray of the more significant passages of the IPC.

Instead, the volume does not enter into questions pertaining to the genesis of the document. We will limit ourselves here to mentioning the fact that its “incubation” period was rather long, since – as Mgr. J. Saraiva Martins -^[26] announced to journalists – “they had been working on the drafting of this Instruction since 1981”. It should not be left out that “the immediate purpose for the presentation of the Instruction”, offered by the synodal assembly of September-October 1990, might have suggested shortening the time of the final draft. Perhaps this explains one of the reasons why the initial “extensive consultation” was not followed by an equally participated examination in the final elaboration of the document.

Quickly reviewing the perspectives opened by the IPC, it is necessary to recognize above all that the document appears clearly projected towards the future.

Its main request for a renewed increase in patristic studies in the formation of priests could perhaps come about through a more complete and coherent doctrinal elaboration, extending the range of arguments in size and incisiveness with the interdisciplinary dialogue becoming more open and comprehensive.

Nevertheless, the magisterial dictation, soundly orientated towards the concluding Dispositions, gives the IPC a characteristic dynamic quality.

From this point of view – we believe – the document itself recommends to pastors and theologians operative convergence and coherence in decisions, while it leaves the way open to critical-integrative interventions of its theoretical instrumentation.

This is the point of view professed in the volume we have presented.^[27]

However, in the margins of the IPC there exists an ulterior, authoritative contribution by Cardinal P. Laghi, successor to W. Baum at the head of the Congregation for Catholic Education. We are speaking of a conference he gave at the Salesian University on 31 October 1991, in the context of the “relaunching” of the scientific manifestations of the Corona Patrum, the prestigious Torinese series of patristic texts.^[28]

It would be opportune to summarize the more relevant passages here.^[29]

Cardinal Laghi first of all affirms that the Instruction, while encouraging and sustaining the commitment to studies and research in the field of patristics, also looks beyond its boundaries, pursuing more general objectives. In fact, it looks not only to patrologists, but to all theologians, inviting them to offer future presbyters a healthy and possibly complete cultural formation: and it is precisely the study of patristics, observes Cardinal Laghi, which can help priests to integrate their theological knowledge.

Consequently, the IPC invites students of theology to the school of the Fathers, a school that always looks to the essential. “As Yves-Marie Congar affirms in this regard, the patristic tradition “is not dissociative, but instead synthesis, harmonization. It does not proceed from the outside isolating some texts here and there, but on the contrary works from inside, connecting them all in the center and arranging the details according to their relationship to the essential.” The pratristic tradition “is therefore generator of totality, harmony and synthesis. It lives and gives life from the sense of togetherness of God’s design, out of which the architecture of what Irenaeus calls system or oikonomia is distributed and understood.”^[30]

But it is obvious that students of theology should not be content with the simple indications of patrologists to assimilate such a spiritual attitude and habit, but must enter into an ever more intimate familiarity with the patristic works. Embarking on this path, they will learn to more easily grasp the essential nucleus of Christian theology. The unity of theological knowledge – like all knowledge – is a very lofty goal, which takes effort and which can be achieved only in the awareness of the true nature and mission of theology itself.^[31] Quite conveniently number 16 of the IPC carries a famous passage of a letter Paul VI wrote in 1975 to Cardinal M. Pellegrino on the centennial of the death of J.P Migne. We read, among other things: “the study of the Fathers "is absolutely necessary for those who care about the theological, pastoral and spiritual renewal promoted by the Council and who wish to cooperate in it”.^[32]

But there is another reason, Cardinal Laghi continues, why the Fathers are teachers of priestly formation. They, in fact, who were for the most part bishops expert in and fully dedicated to the ministry, offer the students excellent examples and impulses for the preparation to their mission as pastors. The pastoral dimension, heavily underlined by Vatican II, is a formative component to which much importance is given today, and that impassions the candidates to the priesthood. Often, however, this enthusiasm turns into unilateral activism, lacking in motivation and theological content, in contrast with that sublime pastoral ideal personified by the Fathers of the Church. The more well-known patristic writings dedicated to the priesthood, such as, for example, the Dialogue on the priesthood by John Chrysostom or the Pastoral Rule of Gregory the Great, reveal the true heart of the pastors, who, while stooping to the spiritual needs of the people, try to raise them up to the heights of evangelical perfection, without neglecting the difficulties and material needs in which they find themselves.

To avoid the danger of a horizontal flattening, the candidate to the priesthood and all priests must learn from the Fathers how to be in this world and not of this world; how to be profoundly human and at the same time supernatural, true men of the Church. This grandiose concept of the pastoral ministry includes the deeply felt concerns of the Fathers for the unity of the Church (it is what today we would call the Ecumenical issue); those efforts for the engrafting of Christianity in the Greco-Roman cultural context (the missionary issue of inculturation), and the untiring concerns to alleviate the lot of those who are oppressed and of the poor (the social issue).

From the pastoral guidelines indicated above, Cardinal Laghi concludes, we can see the Christocentric theology of the Fathers, which sustains and nourishes their entire sacred ministry. It is a shining example for the preparation of future priests, who, to become good pastors of souls, must place at the basis of all their apostolic activity a healthy theology and a profound spiritual life.^[33]

For my part, I believe that the appeals of the IPC for a renewal of patristic studies in the formation of priests are many and well-motivated.

I am satisfied in this regard by a simple comment, enough, however, to give an idea of the rapid change of perspective that has come about in recent years.

Already in the early fifties, Cardinal M. Pellegrino complained that studies of patristic theology were “lacking an adequate philosophical foundation and a solid historical setting”, which was often substituted by “a more comfortable doctrinal schematism”, “suggested by the developments of theological thought” often times extraneous to the mentality of the Fathers.^[34]

M. Pellegrino, therefore, denounced that “ancillary character” of patristic studies with respect to dogmatic theology, which characterized the theological curricula of the fifties and sixties. Frequently the study of the Fathers did not represent an independent discipline in them. Instead, a more or less comprehensive exposition of the patristic doctrines was assured, but always strictly dependent upon the dogmatic treatise under discussion. Thus, very often the ecclesiastical writers could appear to the students as real people inserted in a specific historical-cultural context. The obvious danger was that of “flattening” the theological reflection and of an undue absolutization of the theological model underlying the dogmatic treatise: the reading of the Fathers was adapted to this model like to a “Procrustean bed”.^[35]

In this context, the IPC inaugurates – as already mentioned – a sort of “Copernican Revolution”, if we consider that patristics was included among the main disciplines of the formative curriculum, to be taught separately, with its own method and material, “for at least three semesters for two hours per week”.^[36]

4. Provisional conclusions

It is evident that the magisterial documents cited – specifically the IPC and the PDV – consider the Fathers of the Church as irreplaceable teachers in the intellectual, spiritual and pastoral formation of future presbyters.^[37]

I believe, in fact, that it is above all to the ministers of the Church that the words with which Benedict invited the monks to read the holy Fathers should be directed, for – he explained – their teachings can lead “to the highest degree of perfection”.^[38]

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER TWO

The Antiochene tradition: of Ignatius to John Chrysostom^[39]

1. Introdution

In this and the following chapter I intend to present some patristic texts relating to the formation of priests.

I will limit myself out of necessity to a few examples, among the many possible,^[40] referring in this chapter to the “Antiochene tradition” and it the next to the “Alexandrine tradition”.

It is a choice that puts some order in the exposition, and on the other hand helps to overcome the image of a “theology of the Fathers” that is as rigid and compact as a monolith. In fact, the variety of the antique “schools” of Antioch, Alexandria, Edessa… and of their respective historical-cultural roots establishes different positions and sensitivities in the patristic texts.

The orientations of the antique traditions of Antioch and Alexandria are well known.

On the one hand, Antioch seems to incarnate the more evident characteristics of the so-called Asiatic “materialism”, sustainer of the letter in exegesis and of the humanity of the Son in Christology; while Alexandria seems to take the two instances – respectively complimentary – of allegory in exegesis and of the divinity of the Word in Christology.^[41]

2. From the Letters of Ignatius (+ 107)^[42]

The custom of considering Luciano, teacher of Ario, as the founder of the “school” of Antioch is widespread.

However, Ignatius, in the first half of the second century, already anticipates some characteristic traits, especially in the marked realism of the referrals to Christ’s humanity. He “is truly of the lineage of David” writes Ignatius to the Smyrnese church, “he was truly born of a virgin…, was truly nailed to a cross for us”.^[43]

Ignatius employs the same realism also when referring to the Church. In particular he often alludes to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, speaking of the bishops, presbyters and deacons.^[44]

“It is proper that you”, he writes to the Ephesians, “act in agreement with the will of the bishop; and this you do. In fact, your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it is as closely tied to the bishop as the strings to a harp. Therefore, your accord and harmonious love is a hymn to Jesus Christ. Yes, one and all, you should form yourselves into a choir, so that in perfect harmony and taking your pitch from God, you may sing in unison and with one voice”.^[45] And after having advised the Smyrnese not “to do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval”,^[46] he confides to Polycarp: «I offer my life for those who are obedient to the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons. Along with them may I get my share of God’s reward! Work together, one for the other, struggle together, run together, suffer together, go to bed and get up together, as God’s stewards, assessors and servants. Try to please him in whose ranks you serve and from whom you get your pay. Let none of you prove a deserter. Let your baptism be your shield, your faith your helmet, your charity your spear and your patience your armor”.^[47]

We can gather in the Letters of Ignatius a sort of constant and fruitful dialect between the two characteristic aspects of the Christian experience: certainly, the hierarchical structure of the ecclesial community, which we have already mentioned, but also the fundamental unity that binds all the faithful together in Christ.

Consequently, there is no possibility of a conflict of roles.^[48] On the contrary, the insistence on communion and reciprocity among believers, continuously reformulated through images and examples (the harp, strings, intonation, concert...), appears as the conscious implication of the common identity of the faithful, whether or not they be ordained ministers.

On the other hand, the responsibility of the deacons, presbyters and bishops in building the community is evident.^[49]

The invitation to love and unity is valid first of all for them. “Be one”, Ignatius writes to the Magnesians, referring to Jesus’ prayer at the Last Supper: “one petition, one mind, one hope in love… Run off, all of you, to Jesus Christ as if to the one temple of God, to the one altar: he is one, and proceeding from the one Father, he remained united to Him, and in unity returned to Him”.^[50]

Ignatius does not explicitly speak of the formative demands in relationship to the sacred ministries. However, that does not make them less evident. If we look, for example, at the passage from the Letter to the Trallians in which the bishop, gathering the teachings of Acts 6 (the ordination of the first deacons), he explains with frankness: “The deacons, who are at the service of Jesus Christ’s mysteries, must try to give complete satisfaction to everyone. For they are not merely servers of food and drink, but are servers (huperétai: literally "oarsmen") of God’s Church. They must avoid every criticism as they would fire”.^[51]

It would be useful to compare this passage from Ignatius with the identikit of the deacon that emerges from the story of the Acts of the Apostles.

Deacons, the story relates, are “reputable” men, or better, “people of tried witness” (martyrouménoi: Acts 6:3). As we can see, the word utilized is linked with the term “martyrs”. We could say, therefore, that the deacon must be a “martyr”, in the sense that the witness of his deaconate can never withdraw, at the cost – if necessary – of life itself. In this sense Ignatius says that deacons are servants of the Church and of God.

On the other hand, keeping with the Acts, the deacon must be “filled with the Spirit and wisdom” (6:3). It is a wisdom that comes from God: it is the “wisdom of the Spirit”, which requires profound intimacy with the Lord. Therefore, the service of charity – the so-called “service at table”, to which deacons are called – presupposes always, however, the primacy of the spiritual dimension in their life.

Returning to the words of Ignatius, they are not simple distributors of food and drink, but are at the service of the mysteries of Jesus Christ. If a minister is not formed in the contemplation of Christ’s holy mysteries, to the point of reaching “unity” with him, he cannot exercise the authentic ministry of charity and does not “bring ahead” God’s Church.

3. John Chrysostom (+ 407)^[52]

I pass now to another Antiochene Father, mystically in love with the priesthood.

Before any other consideration, I would like to present the pastor in action, “captured at the top” of his ministry.

I am referring to the famous Homilies on Matthew, and to the way in which Chrysostom in a pastoral sense faced burning issues, such as that of the rich and poor in the Christian community of Antioch.

Chrysostom’s homilies (approximately 350-407) On the Gospel of Matthew represent for us the oldest complete commentary on the first Gospel. They represent, moreover, an important witness to that homiletic activity that would assure Chrysostom the highest recognition among ecclesiastical orators. They date back to the years between 386 and 397 – in other words, between his ordination to the priesthood in Antioch and his election to the Patriarchal Cathedral of Constantinople -, a time in which Chrysostom was called to carry out various preaching assignments in the most important Antiochene churches. These assignments were particularly agreeable to John who, following a monastic and hermetic experience, had embraced the priesthood for an irresistible pastoral vocation,^[53] and who especially through the preaching of Scriptures aimed at fulfilling that vocation: consistently his preaching and his exegesis – faithful to the fundamental directions of the “Antiochene school” – appear singularly sensitive to the concrete situations, problems and needs (also material ones) of its recipients.

In particular – in Antioch in the second half of the fourth century, where the social and economic imbalances were enormous as a result of wars, latifundium, capitalism, the unjust tax regime… - Chrysostom is continuously made to deal with the many issues raised by the presence of both rich and poor within the community:^[54] if you think that only in the homilies On the Gospel of Matthew the theme recurs not less than one hundred times!

Therefore, we would like to listen to “this very successful pastor” reading a few passages of his fiftieth homily On the Gospel of Matthew.^[55]

As a whole, the homily comments on the final pericope of Matthew 14: but the last verse of the chapter – where we read that the inhabitants of Gennesaret brought Jesus their sick “and begged him to let them touch at least the hem of his garment” (Matthew 14:36) – allows Chrysostom a considerably autonomous parenthetical development, which alone occupies the second half of the homily.

The development is justifiable thanks to the context of the Eucharistic liturgy, in which the homily is placed: “Let us also then touch the hem of his garment”, Chrysostom invites; “or rather, if we be willing, we have the entire Christ. His body, in fact, is here now before us”. And he continues: “Believe, therefore, that even now it is that supper, at which Jesus himself sat down”.^[56]

According to Chrysostom, such certainty of faith questions decisively the responsibility of the faithful, since participation in the mass of the Lord does not allow for any inconsistencies whatever: “Let no Judas then approach this table!”, exclaims the homilist. And presenting oneself at the table with vessels of gold is not a sufficiently dignified criterion: “That table was not of silver nor that cup of gold, out of which Christ gave His disciples His own blood... Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not allow him to be naked: and do not honor him here in the church with silken garments, while allowing him to die outside from the cold and nakedness. He who said: “This is my body” also said: “I was hungry, and you gave me no food”; and: “What you did not do to one of these least ones, you did not do for me”. Let us learn, therefore, to be wise, and to honor Christ as he wishes, spending our riches on the poor. God has no need of golden vessels, but of golden souls. What profit is there if his table is full of golden cups, when he is dying of hunger? First fill him when he is hungry, and then use the means you have left to adorn his table!”.^[57]

The expressions cited are enough to show his total identification of Christ with the poor. Chrysostom, in fact, is well aware that, there is a basic truth: he who serves the poor serves Christ; he who rejects the poor rejects Christ. On this we will be judged (Matthew 25: 31-46). However, Chrysostom is equally aware that this love of neighbor – to be truly that of Jesus – must be nourished by communion with God, by his love for us.

In his preaching, the bishop underlines with insistence the intimate relationship between the commandment of love and the life of God. The authentic witness of charity must be able to say, together with the apostle John: “What we have looked upon, that is, the Word of life, we have proclaimed to you!” (1 John 1-4).

In other words, to grow in authentic charity, the faithful, and all the more so the ordained ministers must know Jesus and enter into profound intimacy with him.^[58]

Once again, the discussion returns to the “contemplative dimension” of the presbyter and to the quality of his meeting with the Lord in the Word and in the sacraments.

The famous Dialogue with Basil, composed around the year 390,^[59] can also be read in this same perspective, there where John Chrysostom speaks of the “example” and the “word” as medicines of the presbyter: “Those who cure men’s bodies” he writes, “have an abundance of medicines at their disposal… In our case, besides our example, there is no other instrument or other healing method outside of the instruction which is carried out with the word”. ^[60]

In this same Dialogue Chrysostom speaks of the priesthood as “a life of courage and dedication”, because the ministry of the (true) pastor does not know the narrow limits of personal benefit, but redounds to the advantage of the entire flock.^[61]

For Chrysostom, caring for the flock is the “sign of love”, it is the concrete proof that the minister truly loves the Lord: “If you love me, feed my sheep…”.

On that occasion, Chrysostom observes, the teacher asked the disciple if he loved him not because he wanted to know: why would he have to do so, he who scrutinizes and knows the heart of everyone? Neither did he “intend to show us how much Peter loved him: this was already obvious from many other facts; instead he wanted to show how much he (the Lord) loves his Church, and to teach Peter and all of us how much care we must lavish on this work”.^[62]

And this is where the overwhelming difference lies between the “mercenary” and the “pastor”: “the good Pastor gives his life for his sheep” (John 10:11).

4. Provisional conclusions

One has the impression that both Ignatius and John insist more on the identity and on the mission of the presbyter than on his formation path. For the most part, in fact, the formative demands remain only implicit.

In both Fathers, however, we were able to notice a strong emphasis on the necessary unity of the presbyter with Christ.

For the Anthiochenes, moreover, perfect unity with Christ and total dedication to the flock do not appear to be simply two constitutive characteristics of the presbyter (to which, consequently, every priestly formation plan will constantly be orientated). They make up a single reality. They are like two faces of the same coin. The one confirms the other, and there should never be the case of a priest that has one without the other. For the presbyter, complete dedication to the flock is the sign of his unity with Christ; on the other hand, complete dedication to the flock requires him to continuously “turn to Jesus Christ as to the one temple of God, as to the one altar”.

In the final analysis, the “realism” of the Antiochene Fathers invites the presbyter to a progressive synthesis of configuration to Christ (intimacy, union with him) and pastoral dedication (mission, service to the Church and the world), until the point that through one dimension the other speaks, and the ministers are never reduced to “simple distributors”, but may be “authentic witnesses” of the mysteries of Christ and his Church.

CHAPTER THREE

CHAPTER THREE

The Alexandrian tradition: Origen^[63]

1. Introduction

Let us continue with the presentation and the commentary on some patristic texts about priestly formation. I will refer now to the so-called “Alexandrian tradition”.

Alexandria – as we have already pointed out – appears to nurture two tendencies that are complementary to the Antiochene tradition, i.e. allegory in exegesis and the valorization of the divinity of the Word in Christology. In general, Alexandria is quite remote from the so-called Asian “materialism”, with which we dealt in Chapter Two: this seems to be fairly evident also in the ecclesiological domain and, particularly so, in the conception of the ordained ministry.^[64]

In order to outline the Alexandrian orientations on the topic of priestly formation, I will just confine myself to one, yet highly representative, example: I am referring to Origen, namely to his Homilies on Leviticus, that he delivered at Caesarea Palaestina between 239 and 242. A few years have elapsed since the severe crisis which – because of the priestly ordination conferred on him around 231 by the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem without the knowledge of the bishop of Alexandria – opposed Origen and his ordinary Demetrius. The crisis remained unresolved and led to the transfer of Origen to Caesarea.

Ambrose (d.397), bishop of Milan, is the heir to the Alexandrian tradition in the West – mainly in the exegetical domain -.^[65] But we have already dealt with Ambrose and Augustine, his “disciple”, in Chapter One. At any rate, to conclude the discourse, I will refer you to the report by father Janssens, already mentioned, on the verecundia (or on the «right conduct») of the clerics in the ambrosian treatise De officiis [ministrorum].^[66]

2. Origen (+ 254)^[67]

First of all, we must recognize that Origen, perfectly in line with the Alexandrian tradition, is more interested in contemplating the Church in her spiritual aspect, as the mystical Body of Christ, than in her visible aspect.

Thus, Origen pays more attention to the so-called “hierarchy of holiness”, in relation to an endless journey to perfection proposed to every Christian, than to the “visible hierarchy”.

As a consequence, the Alexandrian refers more often to the common priesthood of the faithful and to its characteristics, than to the hierarchical priesthood.^[68]

At any rate, following the discourse by Origen on both subjects, it will not be difficult to draw some indications on the journey of formation of priests.

2.1. The priesthood of the faithful and the conditions for exercising such priesthood

A long series of Origen’s texts aims to explain the conditions required to exercise the common priesthood.

In his ninth Homily on Leviticus, referring to Aaron’s prohibition, after the death of his two sons, from entering the Sancta sanctorum «at all times» (Leviticus 16,2) – he warns: «This shows that if anyone were to enter the sanctuary at any time without being properly prepared and wearing priestly attire, without bringing the prescribed offerings and making himself favourable to God, he would die [...]. This discourse concerns us all: it requires us, in fact, to know how to accede to God’s altar. Oh, do you not know that the priesthood has been conferred upon you too, that is, upon the entire Church of God and believing people? Listen to how Peter speaks to the faithful: “chosen race’, he says, “royal, priestly, holy nation, people whom God has ransomed’. “You therefore possess the priesthood because you are “a priestly race’ and must thus offer to God the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of orations, the sacrifice of mercy, the sacrifice of purity, the sacrifice of justice, the sacrifice of holiness. But to offer it with dignity, you need garments that are pure and different from the common clothes of other men, and you need the divine fire - not one alien to God, but that one which God had given to men – of which the Son of God says: "I came to send fire on the earth".^[69]

Again in his fourth Homily, drawing inspiration from the Levitical legislation according to which the fire for the holocaust should ever be burning on the altar (Leviticus 6,8-13), Origen thus addresses his faithful: “«Listen: there must always be a fire on the altar. And you, if you want to be a priest of God – as is written: “You will all be priests of God”, you are told: “Chosen race, royal priesthood, people whom God has ransomed” -; if you want to exercise the priesthood of your soul, never let the fire be extinguished from your altar”. ^[70]

As you can see, the Alexandrian hints at the inner conditions that make the faithful more or less worthy to exercise his priesthood. The same Homily goes on to say: “This means what the Lord commands in the gospels, “let your loins be girded and your lamps burning”. So, may the fire of faith and the lamp of science be always burning for you».^[71]

Actually, on one hand the “girded loins”^[72] and the “priestly vestments”, i.e. the purity and honesty of life, on the other the “ever burning lamp”, that is the faith and the knowledge of Scriptures, take shape as the indispensable conditions for the exercise of the common priesthood.

And they are even more so, manifestly, for the exercise of the ministerial priesthood: rather, we could say that in Origen’s thinking they are the “milestones” of the priestly formation. But we will go back to this discourse in our conclusions.

2.2. Priesthood of the faithful and reception of the Word

Origen, rather than on “girded loins”, focuses more attention on the “burning lamp”, i.e. on the welcoming and study of the Word of God.

«Jericus crumbles under the trumpets of the priests”, the Alexandrian begins in his 7th Homily on Joshua; and a little later he remarks: You have Joshua [= Jesus] in yourself as a guide, thanks to your faith. If you are a priest, build “metal trumpets” (tubae ductiles) for yourself; or rather, since you are a priest – in fact you are “royal race”, and you are said to be “holy priesthood” -, build “metal trumpets” for yourself from the Holy Scriptures, hence draw (duc) the true meanings, hence your speeches; for this very reason actually they are called tubae ductiles. Sing in them, that is sing with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, sing with the symbols of prophets, with the mysteries of the law, with the doctrine of the apostles”.^[73]

According to the third Homily on Genesis, the “chosen race that God has ransomed” must welcome in their ears the right circumcision of the Word of God: « “You, people of God”, Origen says, “people chosen entitled to narrate the virtues of the Lord”, welcome the proper circumcision of the Word of God in your ears and on your lips and in your heart and on the prepuce of your flesh and, in general, in all your limbs».^[74]

«You, people of God», adds Origen in another context, «you are called to listen to the Word of God, and not as plebs, but as rex. You are actually said: "Royal and priestly race, people that God has chosen for Himself"».^[75]

The reception of Scriptures is critical in order to fully participate in the «priestly race». By interpreting Ezechiel 17 in an allegorical manner, Origen shows to his faithful two options, opposed to each other: the alliance with Nabucodonosor – marked by malediction and exile -, characteristic of those who reject the Word; or the alliance with God, whose distinctive trait is precisely the reception of Scriptures. This alliance is followed by the benediction and the promise: thus “all of us who have welcomed the Word of God, are regium semen», states Origen in his twelfth Homily on Ezechiel. «In fact we are called “chosen race and royal priesthood, holy nation, people that God has ransomed"».^[76]

2.3. Priesthood of the faithful and «hierarchy of the holiness»

These conditions - right behavior, but above all the welcoming and study of the Word – establish a genuine «hierarchy of holiness»^[77] in the common priesthood of Christians.

For example, Origen clearly thinks more of a «hierarchy of spiritual merits », than a «visible hierarchy», when, in the fourth Homely on the Numbers he concludes the explanation of the censorship and liturgical offices of the Leviticus (Number 4), saying: «Since this is the way God dispenses his mysteries and rules the service of sacred objects, we must demonstrate ourselves worthy of priesthood ranks [...]. We are, in fact, "the Holy nation, regal priesthood, chosen people", because responding to the received grace with merits in our life, we are considered worthy of the holy mystery ».^[78]

In the following Homily, the fifth on Numbers, venturing in an audacious interpretation of the text (Numbers 4,7-9), he allegorically reads the various elements that constitute the «tent of the gathering». Some allusions are still made to the «hierarchy of holiness» when the homilist declares «this tent includes », that is, the Church of the Living God, «some people with higher merits and superiority in grace ». In any case, the entire group of the faithful constitutes the «rest», that is, a people of saints carried in the angels’ hands to avoid faltering on the stone, and thus being able to enter the promised land. Notwithstanding severe levitical precautions, each one of them is entitled to contemplate without sacrilege some aspects of the mystery of God, because they are all together called “royal priesthood and race, holy nation, a people bought by God».^[79]

Still in the Homely on Numbers one reads the famous Origenian interpretation of the well of Beer, “ God said to Moses: “Gather the people and I will give them water”. Then Israel sang this song: “The well flows: sing! The Well that princes have dug, Kings of people drilled with the spectre and with their batons» (Numbers 21,16-18). Origen sees in this well Jesus Christ himself, the source of the Word, and mentions princes and kings of people to represent the different degrees of depth in reading and interpreting the Scriptures. If a distinction must be made between princes and king, Origen suggests in seeing princes as prophets and kings as apostles. «As for the possibility of calling the apostles kings », the Alexandrian teacher explains, «it can easily come from what is said of all believers: "You are the royal race, supreme priesthood, holy nation».^[80]

In any case, it is confirmed that for Origen true hierarchy is the one based on the various levels of welcoming the Sacred Scripture …, while it remain implicit- at least in the last quoted Homely - that reference to the word of God is indispensable for the exercise of “royal priesthood common to all believers”.

2.4. «Ministerial hierarchy”

In his homely Origen explicitly refers to bishops, presbyters and deacons. According to him, this “visible hierarchy” must represent to the eyes of the faithful the “invisible hierarchy” of holiness. In other words, in Origen’s doctrine ministerial ordination and holiness must go hand and hand.

«Priests», he writes in Homely on Leviticus 6, «must mirror themselves in the precepts of Divine Law, and draw from it the degree of their merit: if they are wearing pontifical vestment [..] and are up to their vocation in knowledge, acts, doctrine; thus they have achieved priesthood not only by name but also by effective merits. Otherwise they must consider themselves of a lower rank, even if they received by name a higher rank».^[81]

Clearly, a very high esteem of ordained priesthood makes Origen very demanding, almost drastic, towards sacred ministers. He therefore warns everyone who rushes towards “those dignities, coming from God, and presidencies and Church ministers».^[82] In the second Homely on Numbers he painfully asks: «Do you believe that those who have the title of priests, who glory themselves of belonging to priesthood, follow their order, and do all that befits their order? Likewise, do you believe that deacons follow the order of their minister? And why do we often hear people complaining and saying: “ Look at this bishop, this priest, deacon…”? Doesn’t this mean that the priest or minister of God do not abide to the duties of their order? ». ^[83]

In his homely he openly reproaches the most outstanding flaws of the priests of our time. It is for us a clear and effective “negative” portrait on dangers to avoid in the presbyter formation.

According to Origen, one of the priest’s weaknesses is love for money and temporal gains; we would say exaggerated craving for bourgeoisie value. He complains priests are absorbed by lay worries, and focused on everyday life “thinking of world affaires, temporal gains and good food».^[84] And adds, in another context: «Among us ecclesiastics, there are those who would do anything to satisfy their stomach, to be honored and benefit from the Church offering. They are the ones who only speak of their stomachs, and derive from it all their words…...».^[85]

Origen scolds priests also for their arrogance and haughtiness. “Sometimes”, Homely on book of Judges , «there are among us – called to set example of humbleness, and placed at the altar of the Lord as mirrors to those who see us- some men that emit the vice of arrogance. Thus a repugnant smell of pride is emitted from the altar of the Lord».^[86] And he adds elsewhere: «Many priests have forgotten to be humble! As if they were ordained in order to avoid being humble. [...] You were appointed as a leader: don’t pride yourself , but be among them as one of them. You must be humble, you must be humiliated; you must avoid pride, core to all evils ».^[87]

According to Origen other priest’s sins are contempt– or at least less consideration- of humble and poor people, and in the relationships with believers, “imbalances” between an excessive severity and equally excessive indulgence.

3. Provisional conclusions

If we gather Origen’s indications to common priesthood and its hierarchy, we can sum up the following presbyteral formation journey.

The «ticket» to access this journey is the «perpetually lit lamp», that is, listening to the Word. Another indispensable condition is «girded loins» and «priestly vestment», meaning purity and honest living: thus, ordained ministers must especially avoid acceptance of middle-class values, pride, low consideration of poor people, excessive strictness and laxity. Priesthood demands complete obedience to the Lord and his Word, detachment from earthly matters, and full brotherliness with people. At the peak of this ascent to perfection- that is, the completion of priestly formation journey, Origen places martyrdom, since «hierarchy of holiness» and « ministerial hierarchy» must coincide .

In his ninth Homily on Leviticus – he alludes to «the fire for the holocaust», that is, to faith and knowledge of the Scriptures which must never be extinguished on the altar of the person who exercises the priesthood” – The Alexandrian teacher adds: «But each one of us has within him» not only the fire; he «also has the holocaust and from his holocaust lights the altar so that it may burn for ever. If I renounce all my possessions, take up my cross and follow Christ, I offer my holocaust on the altar of God: and if I give up my body to be burned with love and charity, achieve the glory of martyrdom, I offer my holocaust on the altar of God ».^[88]

This expresses Origen’s nostalgia for baptism in blood. In the seventh Homely on Judges- that perhaps dates back to the years of Philip the Arab (244-254), when the possibility of a bloody witness seemed blurred - he said. “If God were to grant me to be washed in my blood so as to receive the second Baptism after accepting the death of Christ, I would depart this world with assurance [...]. But those who deserve such things are blessed».^[89]

I conclude with an overview on Origen’s priesthood formation journey.

The impression, like the one in many fields, is that Origen’s position is very demanding, but not radical.

Notwithstanding strong connections between “ministerial hierarchy” and “perfection hierarchy”, his considerations on priesthood (similarly to other Alexandrian scholars: consider Clement of Alexandria),^[90] never present the priest as an angel. but rather position him in a very concrete daily ascending journey, struggling with sin and evil.

For example, progressive detachment from the world which is a requirement of priesthood formation, isn’t seen as a frenzy search for a place which is separated from the world, because Origen writes in the twelfth Homily on Leviticus, “there is no need to look for a sanctuary in a specific place, but in acts, in life and in customs. If they abide to God, and his commandment, regardless whether you are home or in squares; I say “square”? I mean regardless if you even are at the theater: as long as you are obedient to the Word of the Lord you are doubtlessly in the sanctuary».^[91]

Substantially the Alexandrian tradition enriches with concreteness - perhaps in an unexpected way – the image of the shepherd outlined by Ignace of Antioch and John Crysostom.

CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FOUR

Prospective of synthesis: the formation of priests in the early centuries of the Church^[92]

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.^[93]

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^[94], 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. ^[95] 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."^[96]

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.”^[97]

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.”^[98]

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).^[99]

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.”^[100]

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.”^[101]

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".^[102] 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".^[103]

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.^[104]

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.^[105]

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” ^[106], 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.” ^[107] 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”') ^[108], 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’”. ^[109]

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."^[110]

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^[111] 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".^[112]

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.^[113]

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.^[114]

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.^[115] 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. ^[116] 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.” ^[117]

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.” ^[118]

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.^[119] 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.” ^[120]

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). ^[121]

In this context, the so called "imperial Church"^[122] 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). ^[123] 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. ^[124]

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). ^[125]

2.4. “Clerical formation” and “monastic formation”

The training issue was clearly present in the monastic experience of the fourth and fifth centuries. ^[126] We can even speak of “a close interaction” between clerical training and monastic training. ^[127] 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.”^[128]

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’.” ^[129] 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.” ^[130]

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”.^[131]

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"^[132] 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]Initial bibliography, by paragraph: 1) JOHN PAUL II, Pastores dabo vobis, «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 84 (1992), pp. 657-804 (from now on: PDV); E. DAL COVOLO-A.M. TRIACCA (curr.), Sacerdoti per la nuova evangelizzazione. Studi sull'Esortazione apostolica «Pastores dabo vobis» di Giovanni Paolo II (= Library of Religious Sciences, 109), Rome 1994, pp. 333-345; 2) S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale nella catechesi e nella testimonianza di vita dei Padri (= Library of Religious Sciences, 98), Rome 1992; 3) CONGREGATIONE FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Instructio de Patrum Ecclesiae studio in Sacerdotali Institutione, «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 82 (1990), pp. 607-636 (from now on: IPC); E. DAL COVOLO - A.M. TRIACCA, Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa oggi (= Library of Religious Sciences, 96), Rome 1991.

^[2]On the «normative nature» and, on the other hand, the risks of the «idealization» of the primitive Church, see R. FARINA, La Chiesa antica modello di riforma, «Salesianum» 38 (1976), pp. 593-612; L. PERRONE, La via dei Padri. Indicazioni contemporanee per un «ressourcement» critico, in A. and G. ALBERIGO (curr.), «Con tutte le tue forze». I nodi della fede cristiana oggi. Tribute to Giuseppe Dossetti, Genoa 1993, pp. 81-122 (especially 94 ss.), and now E. DAL COVOLO, Raccogliere l'eredità dei Padri, «Journal of the Italian clergy» 77 (1996), pp. 57-63.

^[3]Cfr. PDV 54, pp. 753 s.

^[4]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, La formazione sacerdotale nei Padri della Chiesa. Il XIII Convegno di catechesi patristica, «Salesianum» 52 (1990), pp. 703-715. On the topic - after A. ORBE, Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa nella formazione sacerdotale, in R. LATOURELLE (cur.), Vaticano II: bilancio e prospettive venticinque anni dopo (1962-1987), Assisi 1987, pp. 1366-1380 - see A.-G. HAMMAN, La formation du clergé latin dans les quatre premiers siècles, now in ID., Études patristiques. Méthodologie - Liturgie - Histoire - Théologie (= Théologie historique, 85), Paris 1991, pp. 279-290, and the ample bibliographic reviews of A. FAIVRE, Ordonner la fraternité. Pouvoir d'innover et retour à l'ordre dans l'Église ancienne (= Histoire), Paris 1992, pp. 455-511, and of S. LONGOSZ, De sacerdotio in antiquitate christiana bibliographia [in Polish], «Vox Patrum» 13-15 (1993-1995), pp. 499-555 (cfr. ibidem, pp. 29-311, some important contributions on our topic).

^[5]Cfr. S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale...

^[6]Cfr. G. COPPA, Istanze formative e pastorali del presbitero nella vita e nelle opere di S. Ambrogio, in S. FELICI (cur.), Formazione al sacerdozio miniterialed..., pp. 95-132.

^[7]Ibidem, pp. 131 s.

^[8]Cfr. A. PINCHERLE, Ambrogio ed Agostino, «Augustinianum» 14 (1974), pp. 385-407; G. BIFFI, Conversione di Agostino e vita di una Chiesa, in A. CAPRIOLI-L. VACCARO (curr.), Agostino e la conversione cristiana (= Augustiniana. Testi e Studi, 1), Palermo 1987, pp. 23-34.

^[9]AUGOSTINE, Confessioni 6,4, edd. M. SKUTELLA - H. JUERGENS - W. SCHAUB, BT, Stuttgart 1981, p. 102. See also S. AUGOSTINE, Confessioni, 2 (libri IV-VI), edd. M. SIMONETTI et alii, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla 1993, pp. 94-99 (commento, pp. 252-255).

^[10]AGOSTINE, Confessiones 9,7, edd. M. SKUTELLA et alii, p. 192.

^[11]Regarding care for vocations and the priestly ideal of Augustine, for many aspects similar to that of Ambrose see lately JOHN PAUL II, Lettera Apostolica «Augustinum Hipponensem», «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 79 (1987), pp. 164-167; G. CERIOTTI, La pastorale delle vocazioni in S. Agostino (= Quaerere Deum, 9), Palermo 1991; A.-G. HAMMAN, Saint Augustin et la formation du clergé en Afrique chrétienne, now in ID., Études patristiques..., pp. 269-278; P. LANGA, La ordinación sacerdotal de san Augustín, «Revista Augustiniana» 33 (1992), pp. 133-143.

^[12]Cfr. J. JANSSENS, La verecondia nel comportamento dei chierici secondo il "De officiis ministrorum" di Sant'Ambrogio, in S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale..., pp. 133-143.

^[13]Ibidem, pp. 142 s.

^[14]Cfr. «L'Osservatore Romano» 10.1.1990, pp. 1.5.

^[15]IPC 62, pp. 634 s.

^[16]«L'Osservatore...», p. 5.

^[17]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO-A.M. TRIACCA (curr.), Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa.... For its part the Patristic Institute Augustininum published Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa nella ricerca attuale, Rome 1991 (drawn from «Seminarium» n.s. 30 [1990], pp. 327-578): for our study C. CORSATO, L'insegnamento dei Padri della Chiesa nell'ambito delle discipline teologiche: una memoria feconda di futuro, ibidem, pp. 460-485 is particularly useful.

^[18]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO-A.M. TRIACCA (curr.), Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa..., pp. 7-17.

^[19]Ibidem, pp. 19-43.

^[20]Ibidem, pp. 45-88.

^[21]Ibidem, pp. 89-100.

^[22]Ibidem, pp. 101-131.

^[23]Ibidem, pp. 133-148.

^[24]Ibidem, pp. 149-183.

^[25]Ibidem, pp. 185-202.

^[26]«L'Osservatore...», p. 5.

^[27]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO-A.M. TRIACCA (curr.), Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa..., pp. 3-6. See also the ample review of G. CREMASCOLI in «La Civiltà Cattolica» 143 (1992) III, pp. 448 s.

^[28]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, Corona Patrum: recenti e prossime pubblicazioni nel progresso delle ricerche patristiche italiane, «Ricerche Teologiche» 1 (1990), pp. 207-219; ID., La «Corona Patrum»: un contributo al progresso degli studi patristici in Italia, «Filosofia e Teologia» 6 (1992), pp. 321-330; ID., I Padri della Chiesa e la cultura odierna. In margine a due convegni sugli studi patristici, «La rivista del clero italiano» 73 (1992), pp. 221-231.

^[29]Cfr. P. LAGHI, Riflessioni sulla formazione culturale del sacerdote in margine all'istruzione sullo studio dei Padri della Chiesa, in E. DAL COVOLO (cur.), Per una cultura dell'Europa unita. Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa oggi, Turin 1992, pp. 77-86.

^[30]Ibidem, pp. 83 s.

^[31]Ibidem, p. 84.

^[32]PAUL VI, Lettera a Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Michele Pellegrino per il centenario della morte di J.P. Migne, «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 67 (1975), p. 471.

^[33]Cfr. P. LAGHI, Riflessioni sulla formazione culturale del sacerdote..., p. 86.

^[34]Cfr. M. PELLEGRINO, Un cinquantennio di studi patristici in Italia, «La scuola cattolica» 80 (1952), pp. 424-452 (republished in ID., Ricerche patristiche, 2, Turin 1982, pp. 45-73). See also ID., Il posto dei Padri nell'insegnamento teologico, «Seminarium» 18 (1966), p. 894; E. DAL COVOLO, I Padri della Chiesa negli scritti del salesiano don Giuseppe Quadrio, «Ricerche storiche salesiane» 9 (1990), p. 443; ID., Fra letteratura cristiana antica e teologia: lo studio dei Padri, «Ricerche Teologiche» 2 (1991), pp. 45-56; ID., Un'intervista al prof. Manlio Simonetti, ibidem, pp. 139-144.

^[35]Cfr. ID., I Padri della Chiesa..., p. 443. Tuttavia M. PELLEGRINO, Un cinquantennio..., segnalava tra i sintomi di un rinnovamento ormai attuale il fatto che già intorno agli anni Cinquanta l'insegnamento della patrologia veniva introdotto come disciplina autonoma in vari Seminari. Secondo A. MARRANZINI, La teologia italiana dal Vaticano I al Vaticano II, in Bilancio della teologia del XX secolo, 2. La teologia del XX secolo, Roma 1972, p. 104, «i progressi degli studi biblici e patristici dopo la seconda guerra mondiale si risentono nei trattati dogmatici, scritti ancora per lo più in latino ma che differiscono non poco da quelli dell'anteguerra». Il Marranzini individua le caratteristiche del rinnovamento nella «migliore conoscenza dell'esegesi, della patristica e del metodo storico» e «nella maggiore preoccupazione di far risaltare il valore vitale dei dogmi e di additare il rapporto fra la perenne verità cristiana e gli atteggiamenti spirituali degli uomini» (ibidem).

^[36]Cfr. supra, nota 16 e contesto.

^[37]«I Padri possono, per la ricchezza del loro pensiero teologico, per la loro profonda spiritualità e per la loro sensibilità pastorale, contribuire in modo efficace, anche nel nostro tempo, ad una solida formazione dei futuri presbiteri»: J. SARAIVA MARTINS, Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa nella formazione sacerdotale, «L'Osservatore Romano» 13.6.1992, p. 5 (ripubblicato in Vi darò pastori secondo il mio cuore... Testo e commenti [= Quaderni de «L'Osservatore Romano», 20], Città del Vaticano 1992, p. 302); cfr. ID., Gli studi teologici secondo gli orientamenti del Magistero. Loro funzione nella preparazione al presbiterato, «Seminarium» n.s. 32 (1992), pp. 330-345, là dove si indicano «le ragioni che ci inducono a studiare e insegnare le opere dei Padri» nella formazione sacerdotale (ibidem, p. 333); ID., I Padri della Chiesa nella ricerca teologica attuale, «Seminarium» n.s. 33 (1993), pp. 272-285. Vedi inoltre P. MELONI, Lo studio dei Padri della Chiesa nella formazione sacerdotale, in Theologica. Annali della Pontificia Facoltà Teologica della Sardegna, 2, Cagliari 1993, pp. 85-94; C. DAGENS, Une certaine manière de faire de la théologie. De l'interêt des Pères de l'Église à l'aube du IIIe millénaire, «Nouvelle Revue Théologique» 117 (1995), pp. 65-83.

^[38]BENEDETTO, Regula 73,2, edd. A. DE VOGÜÉ-J. NEUFVILLE, SC 182, Paris 1972, p. 672.

^[39]Initial bibliography: L. PADOVESE, I sacerdoti dei primi secoli. Testimonianze dei Padri sui ministeri ordinati, Casale Monferrato 1992; F. RODERO, El sacerdocio en los Padres de la Iglesia. Grandeza, Pequeñez y Ascesis. Antología de Textos, Madrid 1993; G. HAMMANN, L'amour retrouvé. La diaconie chrétienne et le ministère de diacre du christianisme primitif aux réformateurs protestants du XVIe siècle (= Histoire), Paris 1994.

^[40]A list of the more important patristic texts regarding holiness, to which the presbyter is called, can be found for example in A. TRAPÉ, Il sacerdote uomo di Dio al servizio della Chiesa. Considerazioni patristiche (= Collana Studi Agostiniani, 1), Rome 1985², pp. 41-42.

^[41]For an elaboration of these questions cfr. E. DAL COVOLO (cur.), Storia della teologia, 1. Dalle origini a Bernardo di Chiaravalle, Bologna-Rome 1995, pp. 181-203 («Esegesi biblica e teologia tra Alessandria e Antiochia») e p. 520, note 11. In particular on the «Antiochene theology» cfr. D.S. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch. A study of Early Christian Thought in the East, Cambridge 1982; S. ZINCONE, Studi sulla visione dell'uomo in ambito antiocheno (Diodoro, Crisostomo, Teodoro, Teodoreto) (= Quaderni di studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, 1), L'Aquila-Roma 1988.

^[42]A good introduction to Ignatius is that of F. BERGAMELLI in G. BOSIO - E. DAL COVOLO - M. MARITANO, Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli I e II (= Strumenti della Corona Patrum, 1), Turin 1995³, pp. 88-106 (with bibliography). For the subject of our interests also see C. RIGGI, Il sacerdozio ministeriale nel pensiero di Ignazio di Antiochia, in S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale..., pp. 39-57; M. SIMONETTI, Presbiteri e vescovi nella chiesa del I e II secolo, «Vetera Christianorum» 33 (1996), pp. 115-132.

^[43]IGNAZIO, Smirnesi 1,1, ed. P.T. CAMELOT, SC 10, Paris 1969⁴, p. 132.

^[44]Anche J. COLSON, Ministre de Jésus-Christ ou le sacerdoce de l'Évangile. Étude sur la condition sacerdotale des ministres chrétiens dans l'Église primitive (= Théologie historique, 4), Paris 1966 - che pure vede «dans le Corpus ignacien la tendance à "spiritualiser" les valeurs cultuelles et sacerdotales» (ibidem, p. 332) -, deve riconoscere che il culto cristiano si incarna di fatto «dans une société, dirigée par une hiérarchie fortement constituée, qui en est l'organisme visible» (ibidem, p. 334).

^[45]ID., Efesini 4,1-2, p. 60.

^[46]ID., Smirnesi 8,1, p. 138.

^[47]ID., Policarpo 6,1-2, pp. 150-152.

^[48]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, Sacerdozio ministeriale e sacerdozio comune. La rilettura patristica di 1 Petri 2,9 nell'attuale dibattito sulle origini della distinzione gerarchica, in S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale..., pp. 255-266.

^[49]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, Ministeri e missione alle origini della Chiesa, in E. DAL COVOLO-A.M. TRIACCA (curr.), La missione del Redentore. Studi sull'Enciclica missionaria di Giovanni Paolo II, Leumann (Turin) 1992, pp. 123-136.

^[50]IGNAZIO, Magnesi 7,1-2, pp. 84-86.

^[51]ID., Tralliani 2,3, p. 96.

^[52]For a good introduction to Chrysostom, cfr. O. PASQUATO in G. BOSIO - E. DAL COVOLO - M. MARITANO, Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli III e IV (= Strumenti della Corona Patrum, 3), Turin 1995², pp. 390-435 (with bibliography).

^[53]Cfr. O. PASQUATO, Ideale sacerdotale e formazione al sacerdozio del giovane Crisostomo: evoluzione o continuità?, in S. FELICI (cur.), La formazione al sacerdozio ministeriale..., pp. 59-93.

^[54]Cfr. S. ZINCONE, Ricchezza e povertà nelle omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo, L'Aquila 1973, and now A. OLIVAR, I poveri alle porte delle chiese nella predicazione del IV secolo, in E. MANICARDI - F. RUGGIERO (curr.), Liturgia ed evangelizzazione nell'epoca dei Padri e nella Chiesa del Vaticano II. Studi in onore di Enzo Lodi, Bologna 1996, pp. 219-235.

^[55]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO, I Padri della Chiesa e la Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, in M. TOSO (cur.), Solidarietà. Nuovo nome della pace. Studi sull'Enciclica Sollicitudo Rei Socialis di Giovanni Paolo II, Leumann (Turin) 1988, pp. 15-27.

^[56]GIOVANNI CRISOSTOMO, Sul vangelo di Matteo 50,2-3, PG 58, c. 507.

^[57]Ibidem 50,3-4, PG 58, cc. 508-509.

^[58]See for example the forty-sixth homily On the Gospel of John: «To become one body not by love only, but also in deed, we must unite ourselves to his flesh; this is accomplished by means of the food, which he gave us as a sign of his great love for us. He has mixed himself with us, to the point of forming a single body precisely for this reason; so that we might be one with him, just as the body united to the head is one. This is the sign of the greatest love of all” (ID., Sul vangelo di Giovanni 46,3, PG 59, c. 260).

^[59]See for example GIOVANNI CRISOSTOMO, Dialogo sul sacerdozio by G. Falbo (= Già e non ancora pocket, 33), Milano 1978; F. MARINELLI, La carta del prete. Guida alla lettura del «Dialogo sul sacerdozio» di San Giovanni Crisostomo, Roma 1986; and above all M. LOCHBRUNNER, Über das Priestertum. Historische und systematische Untersuchung zum Priesterbild des Johannes Chrysostomus (= Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte, 5), Bonn 1993.

^[60]GIOVANNI CRISOSTOMO, Dialogo sul sacerdozio 4,3,5-13, ed. A.M. MALINGREY, SC 272, Paris 1980, pp. 248-250.

^[61]Ibidem 2,4,51-64, pp. 116-118: which especially refers to the expression ghennáia psyché, and the semantic pregnancy the adjective takes on in the Christian vocabulary and in particular in Chrysostom (see ibidem, p. 117, note 3).

^[62]Ibidem 2,1,35-40, p. 102.

^[63]Initial references: see above, note 39.

^[64] These are obviously accentuations, not unilateral and exclusive teachings, as is proven for example by the fact that Origen, master of allegory and of the spiritual interpretation of the Bible, is a scholar that meticulously sticks to the letter of the holy text. To further explore these issues, you can refer to E. DAL COVOLO (ed.), Storia della teologia..., pp. 181-203 («Esegesi biblica e teologia tra Alessandria e Antiochia») and p. 520, note 11. Furthermore, see H. CROUZEL, The School of Alexandria and its vicissitudes, in ISTITUTO PATRISTICO AUGUSTINIANUM (ed.), History of Theology, 1. Patristic Age, Casale Monferrato 1993, pp. 179-223; J.J. FERNáNDEZ SANGRADOR, Los origenes de la comunidad cristiana de Alejandría (= Plenitudo Temporis, 1), Salamanca 1994.

^[65]Cfr. M. SIMONETTI, Lettera e/o allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell'esegesi patristica (= Studia Ephemeridis «Augustinianum», 23), Rome 1985, pp. 271-280.

^[66]See above, notes 12-13 and context.

^[67]For an introduction to Origen, after the volume by H. CROUZEL, Origen (= Ancient Christian culture) (french edition, Paris 1985), Rome 1986, see M. MARITANO, in G. BOSIO - E. DAL COVOLO - M. MARITANO, Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli II e III (= Strumenti della Corona Patrum, 2), Torino 1995³, pp. 290-395 (with references). About the priestly ordination of Origen see M. SZRAM, The issue of the priestly ordination of Origen [in Polish], «Vox Patrum» 10 (1990), pp. 659-670.

^[68]Apart from the works by J. Lécuyer and A. Vilela (mentioned below, note 76), on the priesthood of ORIGEN see mainly – after H.U. von BALTHASAR, Parole et mystère chez Origène, Paris 1957, pp. 86-94 (see the italian translation of this work in ID., Origene: il mondo, Cristo e la Chiesa [= Teologia. Fonti, 2], Milano 1972, pp. 60-65), to which Vilela often refers - Th. SCHÄFER, Das Priester-Bild im Leben und Werk des Origenes, Frankfurt 1977 and the outlines by H. CROUZEL, Origene, pp. 299-301, and by L. PADOVESE, I sacerdoti dei primi secoli..., pp. 52-66. See at last A. QUACQUARELLI, I fondamenti della teologia comunitaria in Origene: il sacerdozio dei fedeli, in S. FELICI (ed.), Sacerdozio battesimale e formazione teologica nella catechesi e nella testimonianza di vita dei Padri (= Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 99), Roma 1992, pp. 51-59; Th. HERMANS, Origène. Théologie sacrificielle du sacerdoce des chrétiens (= Théologie historique, 102), Paris 1996.

^[69]ORIGEN, Homily on Leviticus 9,1, ed. M. BORRET, SC 287, Paris 1981, pp. 72-74.

^[70]Ibidem 4,6, ed. M. BORRET, SC 286, Paris 1981, p. 180.

^[71]Ibidem.

^[72] In order to understand Origen’s interpretation of the «girded loins”, it is useful to quote a passage of the first treatise On Easter found at Tura in 1941, where the Alexandrian explain the meaning of the “girded loins” for the pascal dinner (Exodus 12,11), “We are ordered”, Origen remarks, “to be pure from bodily encounters, this is the meaning of the loin girdle. [The bible] teaches us to fasten a bind around the seminal place, and commands us to restrain sexual impulses when we take part in the flesh of Christ” (cfr. O. GUÉRAUD-P. NAUTIN, Origène. Sur la Pâque. Traité inédit publié d'après un papyrus de Toura [= Christianisme antique, 2], Paris 1979, p. 74. The translation is by G. SGHERRI, Origen. On Easter. Tura papyrus [= Christian lectures of the first millennium, 6], Milano 1989, p. 107, to which I will refer you also for the commentary. See at last E. DAL COVOLO, Origene: sulla Pasqua, «Ricerche Teologiche» 2 (1991), pp. 207-221).

^[73]ORIGEN, Homily on Joshua 7,2, ed. A. JAUBERT, SC 71, Paris 1960, p. 200.

^[74]ID., Homily on Genesis 3,5, ed. L. DOUTRELEAU, SC 7 bis, Paris 1976, p. 130. This passage evokes, under certain respects, Origen’s doctrine of the spiritual senses, about which see K. RAHNER, The «spiritual senses» according to Origen, in ID., Theology of the experience of the Spirit (= Nuovi Saggi, 6), Rome1978, pp. 133-163. More in general on Origen’s exegesis see T. HEITHER, Origenes als Exeget. Ein Forschungsüberblick, in G. SCHÖLLGEN - C. SCHOLTEN (curr.),Stimuli. Esegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, Münster Westfalen 1996, pp. 141-153.

^[75]ORIGEN, Homily on Judges 6,3, edd. P. MESSIÉ-L. NEYRAND-M. BORRET, SC 389, Paris 1993, p. 158. On the other hand, according to Origen, anyone who owns the science of divine law is a priest, «et, ut breviter explicem, qui legem et secundum spiritum et secundum litteram novit»: ID., Homily on Leviticus 6,3, ed. M. BORRET, SC 286, p. 280.

^[76]ID., Omelia su Ezechiele 12,3, ed. M. BORRET, SC 352, Paris 1989, p. 386.

^[77]J. LÉCUYER, Sacerdoce des fidèles et sacerdoce ministériel chez Origène, «Vetera Christianorum» 7 (1970), p. 259; A. VILELA, La condition collégiale des prêtres au III siècle (= Théologie historique, 14), Paris 1971, pp. 79-83.

^[78]ORIGEN, Homely on Numbers 4,3, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 30, Leipzig 1921, p. 24; see. A. MÉHAT, SC 29, Paris 1951, p. 108: «Origène songe plus à la hiérarchie des mérites qu'à la hiérarchie visible».

^[79]ORIGEN, Homely on Numbers 5,3, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 30, pp. 28s.

^[80]Ibidem 12,2, p. 99.

^[81]ID., Homely on Leviticus 6,6, ed. M. BORRET, SC 286, pp. 290-292.

^[82]ID., Homely on Isaiah 6,1, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 33, Leipzig 1925, p. 269.

^[83]ID., Homely on Numbers 2,1, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 30, p. 10.

^[84]ID., Homely on Ezekiel 3,7, ed. M. BORRET, SC 352, Paris 1989, p. 140.

^[85]ID., Homely on Isaiah 7,3, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 33, p. 283.

^[86]ID., Homely on the book of Judges 2,2, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS, GCS 30, p. 481.

^[87]ID., Homely on Ezekiel 9,2, ed. M. BORRET, SC 352, pp. 304-306.

^[88]ID., Homely on Leviticus 9,9, ed. M. BORRET, SC 287, p. 116.

^[89]ID., Homely on Judges 7,2, edd. P. MESSIÉ-L. NEYRAND-M. BORRET, SC 389, pp. 180-182. On Origen’s martyrology now see E. DAL COVOLO, Appunti di escatologia origeniana con particolare riferimento alla morte e al martirio, «Salesianum» 51 (1989), pp. 769-784; ID., Morte e martirio in Origene, «Filosofia e Teologia» 4 (1990), pp. 287-294; ID., Note sulla dottrina origeniana della morte, in R.J. DALY (cur.), Origeniana Quinta (= Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 105), Leuven 1992, pp. 430-437; T. BAUMEISTER, La teologia del martirio nella Chiesa antica (= Traditio Christiana, 7), Torino 1995, pp. 138-151 (vedi anche la bibliografia, pp. XXIX-XXXIX). See also annotation 2, pp. 180-181, of the mentioned edition P. MESSIÉ-L. NEYRAND-M. BORRET, SC 389.

^[90]«I think, Church ranks on earth, bishops, presbiterians, deacons, , are a consequence of Anglican hierachy and economy that , as scriptures say, are waiting for the the footprints of the apostles who lived in perfect justice according to the Gospel»: CLEMENT AL., Stromati 6,13,107,2, edd. O. STÄHLIN-L. FRÜCHTEL-U. TREU, GCS 52⁴, Berlin 1985, p. 485.

^[91]ORIGEN Homely on Leviticus 12,4, ed. M. BORRET, SC 287, p. 182.

^[92]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).

^[93]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.

^[94]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.

^[95]Cfr. E. DAL COVOLO (et alii), Laici e laicità nei primi secoli della Chiesa (= Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 21), Milann 1995.

^[96]O. PASQUATO, L'istituzione formativa del presbitero...

^[97]Didaché 15,1-2, edd. W. RORDORF-A. TUILIER, SC 248, Paris 1978, pp. 192-194.

^[98]Ibidem 11,2, pp. 182-188.

^[99]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.

^[100]Didache 9,4. 10,5, p. 176.

^[101]CLEMENTE ROMANO, Lettre aux Corinthiens 40,1-5, ed. A. JAUBERT, SC 167, Paris 1971, p. 166.

^[102]Ibidem 46,6-7, p. 176.

^[103]Ibidem 59,4, p. 196.

^[104]Vedi sopra, note 42-51 e contesto.

^[105]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.

^[106]CLEMENT AL., Stromati 5,6,33,3, edd. O. STÄHLIN - L. FRÜCHTEL - U. TREU, GCS 52⁴, pp. 347-348.

^[107]ID., Pedagogo 1,7,58,1. 59,1, edd. H.I. MARROU - M. HARL, SC 70, Paris 1960, p. 214.

^[108]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.

^[109]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.

^[110]ORIGEN, Contra Celsum 8,74, ed. M. BORRET, SC 150, Paris 1969, pp. 348-350.

^[111]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.

^[112]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.

^[113]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.

^[114]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.

^[115]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.

^[116]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.

^[117]PSEUDOHYPPOLIYUS, La Tradition Apostolique 3, ed. B. BOTTE, SC 11 bis, Paris 1984², pp. 42-46.

^[118]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).

^[119]See ultimately U. FALESIEDI, Le diaconie. I servizi assistenziali nella Chiesa antica (= Sussidi Patristici, 7), Rome 1995, mostly pp. 51-55.

^[120]PSEUDOHYPPOLIYUS, La Tradition Apostolique 4, ed. B. BOTTE, SC 11 bis, p. 52.

^[121]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).

^[122]Cfr. B. STUDER, La teologia nella Chiesa imperiale (300-450), in ISTITUTO PATRISTICO AUGUSTINIANUM (cur.), Storia della teologia..., pp. 305 ss.

^[123]INNOCENZO I, Epistola 2,3, PL 20, c. 472.

^[124]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.

^[125]Cfr., also for the reference to the various editions, A. TRAPÉ, Il sacerdote uomo di Dio..., pp. 16-17.

^[126]See for example L. BOUYER, La spiritualità dei Padri (III-VI secolo). Monachesimo antico e Padri (= Storia della spiritualità, 3/B), Bologna 1986.

^[127]Also O. PASQUATO, L'istituzione formativa del presbitero..., p. 278, to whom we refer also for the following considerations.

^[128]ATHANASIUS, Vie d’Antoine, ed. G.J.M. BARTELINK, SC 400, Paris 1994, p. 178.

^[129]AUGUSTINE, Sermone 355,2, Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana 34, Rome 1989, pp. 244-246.

^[130]PAUL VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi 73, «Acta Apostolicae Sedis» 68 (1976), p. 62.

^[131]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).

^[132]PDV 5, p. 664.