www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern terminology question

Talon, in liturgical Greek, "cheirotonia" is used for all three major orders of deacon, priest, and bishop.

Oddly enough, it's also used in the text for the ordination of a deaconess.

This is to be distinguished from "cheirothesia", used for the minor orders, elevations, and various blessings to different ministries.

In Byzantine terminology, it's perfectly correct to speak of the "ordination of a bishop."

It just occurred to me to go to the source (duh). Take a look at the universal Catechism [vatican.va]. CCC 1554, and 1557-1559, 1559 in particular where both "consecration" and "ordination" are used in the same paragraph. And this on the heels of other paragraphs suggesting that "consecration/ordination" to the episcopate is the final stage/degree of a "single order", not three of them.

So, in this case, it seems like everybody is right. A man is "ordained" only once in his life (insert asterisk here), narrowly speaking, but the use of the word "ordination" to refer to a subsequent elevation to the priesthood and then the episcopate is entirely permissible just the same.

\\A man is "ordained" only once in his life, narrowly speaking, but the use of the word "ordination" to refer to a subsequent elevation to the priesthood and then the episcopate is entirely permissible just the same.\\

Not in the Eastern view.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church governs the entire Church, not just the West, no?

The Catechism doesn't "govern" - it merely restates info

There are Eastern Catechisms.

I would, however, disagree with Pasisozi if, as it appears, he is suggesting that "ordination" isn't acceptable in the East, to describe a priest's elevation to the episcopate.

Many years,

Neil

Of course, the book itself does not "rule over" anyone or anything. However, insofar as it presents to us the revealed Word of God, as most of the Catechism does, it does indeed reign over the Church to the same degree the magisterium [vatican.va] does. (See section 10.)



Aye, just as there are catechisms particular to the West as well, both of which would necessarily be subordinate to the (universal) Catechism of the Catholic Church if I'm not grossly mistaken.


I believe it was the other way around. I was the one questioning, at first, the legitimacy of calling the consecration of a priest as a bishop an "ordination."

\\I would, however, disagree with Pasisozi if, as it appears, he is suggesting that "ordination" isn't acceptable in the East, to describe a priest's elevation to the episcopate.\\

I said and meant the exact opposite.

I don't agree. A deacon is not merely elevated to the priesthood, he is ordained as a priest, and a priest is not merely elevated to the episcopate, he is ordained as a bishop. The CCC speaks of the sacramental action by which a man is made a deacon as "ordination to the diaconate" (1569); with respect to the priesthood it states "the priesthood of priests, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is nevertheless conferred by its own particular sacrament" (1563); and it speaks of "ordination of a bishop" (1559). The ordination of a deacon, the ordination of a priest, and the ordination of a bishop are distinct sacramental actions, and each is truly ordination.

I don't want to say much here as Orthodox use of the terminology differs between Greek and Slavic practice and that will add a layer of confusion. But while the concept of ordination leaving an indelible mark is not found in Orthodoxy, I agree with Athanasius that a man is ordained to the diaconate, is ordained to the priesthood and ordained as bishop. The problem comes from the East NOT really limiting the definition of sacrament into seven fixed categories. A whole 'nother issue and discussion.

Have a blessed Pascha!

I already granted that the use of the term "ordination" in each case is valid, even though these seem, in essence, to be one and the same "event." If I'm not mistaken, the word "ordained" means "appointed." Certainly nothing wrong with describing a man as first being "appointed" a deacon, then being "appointed" a priest, and then "appointed" a bishop...

This offered, I was going to say that, given the wording of the aforementioned paragraphs of the Catechism, one could attempt a case for the ordination to the deaconate and then to the priesthood being "separate" institutions. However, that would probably be eisogetical. See below for more.

And the catechism is also pretty clear that "Episcopal ordination" is the "fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders" (1554) therein implying that at least priesthood and the episcopate are the same thing - the latter simply being a fuller or "more complete" expression of the former.

And then there is this (emphases mine)...


Clearly, one can go through the sacramental ceremony a second and third time (en route to the priesthood and then episcopate). But in a manner that seems very similar to the way one is revisiting one and the same event over and over again mystically in the mass, not attending multiple events, so the "revisiting" of the Sacrament of Orders would not seem to be three "unique" acts, but, as was just stated, a revisiting of one and the same act three separate times.

Peace be with you.

Ordination to the diaconate, to the presbyterate, and to the episcopate are indeed three unique acts. The offices are distinct, the ordination rites have differences, and finally, there are distinctions in the indelible character granted in the various ordination rites.

Are you speaking from an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic perspective?

To be clear, it's obvious the three are distinct "states of office", and I don't doubt that the wording of the ordination rite for each is different. It would have to be. Three different "degrees of separation", yes, but one single "order", the final of which, the episcopate, is its fullest expression, according to the Catechism.

I'm not a theologian, and I have absolutely no desire to "split hairs" or engage in any sort of "saber rattling", for the record. Just asserting what I see the Catechism saying in an attempt to achieve a more precise understanding of the truth, to the degree that it's possible here.

Incidentally, whence the idea that three distinct indelible marks are received (by someone ordained to the episcopate), rather than just one? (Open-ended question.)

By the same token, whence can one say that only ONE charagma is received?

But in the Byzantine tradition, we don't think that way.

Orthodoxy will deny that major orders confer an indelible mark on the soul of the ordinand. If a deacon, priest, or bishop leaves the Church (which happened during the Turkocratia), he leaves his orders at the door. Should he be reconciled with the Church, it is as a layman.

You'll have to define "charagma" for me before I can answer the question.


Expound? Not quite sure what you're referring to, or what you mean.


And what bearing does that have on Catholic teaching?

To frame the question more succinctly, do the Eastern Catholic churches follow the Orthodox theology with respect to the nature of clerical ordination or that of the Church of Rome? I think that is what Talon is asking and frankly, it leads to a more important question - not because this particular issue is significant in terms of the division between the Orthodox and Rome, but in general terms. I can not envision a reunited Church where the catechism of either Rome or the Orthodox is universally applicable to both. The Orthodox are used to divergent approaches to explaining things while many Catholics search for a one size fits all answer to any manner of questions. A wise Orthodox priest will answer many questions with the words, 'It depends...' unless the questions go to the very issues of dogma as defined by the Fathers, Holy Tradition and the Councils...there is no Orthodox counterpart to the detailed catechism of the Roman Church. So, in the question posed by Talon, do the Eastern Catholics follow the Orthodox understanding of the nature of ordination or that of the west.