The Sacerdotal Canons of Trent, Their Foundations, and Their Persistence

The Council of Trent provided for the Catholic Church and her adversaries a foundational structure for much of her teachings across a great many areas of theology, including the basis for her teachings on Original Sin, Justification, and — most significantly for this article — the seven Sacraments. Session 23,¹ wherein the doctrinal chapters and the canons for the Sacrament of Orders were promulgated, was the culmination of several attempts to redraft said doctrines and canons over time. The work was begun at the Council of Bologna on April 26, 1547 and revisited after the opening of the Council of Trent between December 3, 1551, and January 21, 1552. New canons were drafted again by the synodal Fathers on September 18, 1562, and finally the doctrines and canons were coupled on October 13 and November 3 of 1562, with the official promulgation put forth on July 15, 1563.²

These doctrines and canons declared by the Council as regards the priesthood came in response to both Martin Luther’s objections to a ministerial priesthood’s capacities, faculties, and foundations, and the continued resistance of those who followed in his schismatic footsteps, either fully or partially, such as Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, and John Eck. The writings which the Council directly responded to included Martin Luther’s Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the Augsburg Confession of certain princes and cities under the rule of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession and John Eck’s subsequent 404 Theses. It was the final articles submitted for review and anathematization that revealed a substantial understanding of what dissenters believed as regarded the priesthood.³ While the Lutheran documents did not only protest the divine reality of the ministerial priesthood, the cementing and deepening of sacerdotal theology is one of the greatest accomplishments of the Council’s canons.

The canons regarding the Sacrament of Orders serve as a lynchpin in the theological development of Holy Orders. They do not provide a comprehensive understanding of the history or role of the priesthood, but that was not the objective of these canons: as bones to the body’s muscle, such are these priestly canons to sacerdotal theology. They are a framework which reinforces those truths which were being denied by dissenters of the time period.⁴ In this article, we will examine how the canons of the Council of Trent regarding the priesthood both affirm the Scriptural and Traditional roots upon which it was founded and serve as a launching point for the advancement of the Church’s catechesis from the end of Trent through the middle of the twentieth century on the true dignity, quality, and obligations of the priesthood of the New Covenant.

Overview of the Doctrines and Canons

The doctrines begin with the affirmation that the ministerial priesthood is indeed instituted by Christ, particularly due to its relationship with the institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice which the priest is called to offer on behalf of the people in persona Christi capitis. The “consecrating, offering, and administering his Body and Blood” is part of the role of this New Covenant priesthood, along with the remitting or retention of sins.⁵ These roles and responsibilities in particular were given to the Apostles by Jesus, and passed down from them to their successors. From the first chapter comes forth the first canon as regards the Scriptural basis for the priesthood, and part of canon three which states that the priesthood is indeed instituted by Christ.

The second chapter specifies the ranking of the orders from minor to major as both having Scriptural roots as regards the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacons, and the Traditional roots of the full set of orders that included subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter. These are the tenets consolidated into the second canon.⁶

The third chapter confirms the belief that Holy Orders is indeed a Sacrament that confers grace upon its recipients, based upon our Scriptural understanding of the words of Christ, Saint Paul, and Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Chapter three’s doctrines elucidate the third canon.⁷

Finally, the fourth chapter is the theological basis for the fourth through eighth canons. The first two paragraphs correspond to the fourth canon, wherein the fathers state that there is indeed a sacramental seal imparted on those who receive the Sacrament of Orders, just as there is for those receiving Baptism and Confirmation. This character is neither temporary nor changeable after the fact; it is an eternal mark that imbues the ordained with certain faculties. Regardless of whether a priest continues in his proper service to the people of God or not, such a reality cannot change, and additionally, after ordination such men now find themselves in a particular category, obligated to the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments in a way that differs from the care and administrative capacities of laymen. This second decree leads into the third paragraph of the chapter, which affirms the Church hierarchy as something both Scripturally founded and Traditionally upheld. At the height of this hierarchy are the bishops, who are those with higher faculties than the presbyter or deacon, which include the faculty to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and to ordain ministers of the Church.⁸ This hierarchy is also not governed over in any way by the governance of the state, and no ordination of ministers requires the approval of the state for the sake of validity. On the other side of this, no minister who is simply appointed by a secular governing body can be said to take the place of these ordained ministers, as they do not have the grace imparted by the laying on of hands.⁹

The Protestation of Luther and His Followers

The need for such canons regarding the priesthood, Sacraments, and other tenets of the Catholic faith came about initially due to issues arising at the beginning of the sixteenth century focused on one individual in particular: Martin Luther. Luther was a catalyst who brought to a head much of the rumblings against the Church that were brewing at the time. The Western Schism within the Latin Church that had occurred approximately two centuries earlier created fissures in the unity of the Church which conditions of the time period continued to erode until the Protestant Reformation fractured it further.¹⁰ From the academic perspective, it seemed that there was no basis for this protestation against the Church and her clergy;¹¹ however, ecclesiological history tells a different story: Luther and his ilk did rightly disapprove of some of the rising disunity and abuses of the clergy perpetrated in his day. While they allowed their objections to snowball outside of the realm of truth, the initial crisis of faith that they presented to the Church and the Holy Roman Empire was certainly valid in the face of such corruption. David Bohr states that regardless of how the crisis was perceived externally, there was failure on both sides, in that

the very nature and extent of the Reformation represents a monumental failure of ministry on both sides, Catholic and Protestant. If ministry within the Church is primarily a ministry of reconciliation, as St. Paul taught in 2 Corinthians 5:19, so that the Church can be a sign and instrument of unity among all the nations, then the separation and violence that erupted in the wake of the Reformation is an indication of a genuine failure of Christian ministry.¹²

His statement is certainly zealous; the reality is that there are likely ways that both adversaries on their side of this argument could have done better by the other. However, one must also take into account that the truth remains the truth, regardless of how some may perceive it. Luther was given the opportunity to recant, and he preferred to entrench himself further in acrimony and falsehood. Additionally, we will indeed see how Luther’s words did not fall on deaf ears, and how the Church responded to those accusations of real failures among her clergy.

It is best to begin not with Martin Luther’s initial ninety-five Theses, but rather with his follow-up work entitled The Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. The title alone gives the reader a clear understanding of Luther’s view on the Sacraments: that somehow, the Church had taken the people of God captive and had become like the Babylonians who force-marched the Israelites into a new land and imposed their bidding on them (Psalm 137:1-6). The Sacraments as they existed at that point were, to Luther, either grossly misrepresented in what they accomplish — this category included Baptism, Penance, and Eucharist — or not Sacraments at all but rather human traditions imposed on the faithful masquerading as Sacraments — this category included Confirmation, Marriage, Extreme Unction, and Ordination. Luther’s insistence on sola Scriptura had begun, and with it he attempted to throw out much of the Church’s decrees, stating, “Here I shall be called a Wyclifite and a heretic a thousand times over. But what of that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his power, nor even in that of a general council, to make new articles of faith.”¹³

His argument against the ministerial priesthood, first and foremost, is based on his understanding of Scripture that there is no evidence of such a priesthood: “Of this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it is an invention of the church of the pope. Not only is there nowhere any promise of grace attached to it, but there is not the least mention of it in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a sacrament of God that which cannot be proved to have been instituted by God.”¹⁴ Luther felt that ordination in itself was not sinful, but that it should be relegated to the list of regular blessings, such as those used to bless houses, water, and other elements of daily life.¹⁵ If ordination, in Luther’s mind, was so lowered in significance, then logically his next jump makes sense: ordination, in his estimation, cannot impart an indelible mark on the soul of the Christian. This he brands as complete farce designed by the Church.¹⁶ He sees the “reading” of the canonical hours and any administrative presbyteral actions to be pointless or baseless distraction from the real ministry of the priest: to preach the Gospel above all else.¹⁷ In the midst of this aggression unleashed on the priesthood, Luther’s true issue with the clergy can be seen quite clearly, as mentioned previously, to be the abuses they enacted in those roles that, to a great degree during the time period, afforded them authority over the people: “In short, the sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved device for the establishing of all the horrible things that have been wrought hitherto and will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian brotherhood has perished, here shepherds have been turned into wolves, servants into tyrants, churchmen into worse than worldlings.”¹⁸

Luther’s works gained more and more traction, and eventually his tenets were held even by some of the princes of the surrounding area, which still fell under the rule of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1519–1556). The dissention came to a head when these princes and some German cities such as Nuremberg and Reutlingen presented their Augsburg Confession to the Emperor, challenging the Roman Catholic Church to listen to their demands and affect changes to the teachings of the Church according to the newly minted Protestant mindset. In the Confession, Philip Melanchthon’s presentation of the faith, according to Protestant scholars, was meant to be a gentle admission of their beliefs, rather than an outright attack.¹⁹ However, while the language itself is not combative (Luther himself stated that Melanchthon trod more lightly than he could have),²⁰ the fact remained that it was in violation of the truth which is taught and upheld by the Catholic Church, and represented a severe misunderstanding of both biblical and historical theology. Falsity couched in niceties cannot replace truth in any circumstance. Thus, regardless of the wording, the Catholic Church, and by extension the Holy Roman Emperor, could not accept the Confessions, and Charles V requested that they repeal their Confession. The Protestants refused, and rather than retract it, they escalated it.²¹

Following the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s censorious response to the Augsburg Confession, some of Luther’s prominent supporters — namely Chancellor Brück and Philip Melanchthon — were asked by the princes who had converted to Lutheranism to draft the Apology to the Augsburg Confession in further response to the Emperor.²² The articles of the Apology earned the response of the Church in corresponding articles of the Roman Confutation. The Apology articles were not accepted by the same princes and cities as the Confession was, but still covered the same principles of the original document.²³ Those articles that are most relevant to this essay are Articles XI, XIIa and XIIb on Confession, Repentence, and Satisfaction; Article XIII on the number of Sacraments; Article XIV on Order in the Church; Article XXII on Monastic Vows; and Article XXVIII on Church Authority.²⁴ The Lutherans believed that the Church, in her administration of the Sacrament of Penance, asked too much of the people, namely that they enumerate their sins and perform acts of penance or meritorious works as satisfaction, which they believed God would not ask for but rather that Rome was imposing on the penitents.²⁵ Rather, God allows for private Absolution without a full listing of sins which they rejected as unnecessary “by divine right.”²⁶ The Protestants also felt that the priesthood focused too intently on the idea of sacrificial understanding of the Sacraments, particularly of the Eucharist; they felt rather that one could not deem the Eucharist a sacrifice, as Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was the only one sufficient for man’s redemption, and that therefore the focus of the priest must be on the ministry of the Word above all else. Priests making sacrifices, they claimed, ended with the end of the Levitical priesthood, as is “proved” by the eleventh chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews.²⁷ Additionally, Article XIII on the Sacraments stated that ordination could only be accepted if it were given as a type of blessing, wherein anyone was ordained whose role it was to preach to the people. Article XIV’s focus on the hierarchy tries to find some common ground with the Catholic Church by stating that bishops can still exist in the Church. However, they do not fully concede the point, and rather state that bishops, while remaining part of the hierarchy, do not have the power to “impose nonbiblical teachings on the Church,” effectively removing their authority given through the Apostolic succession.²⁸ The Protestants took umbrage with monastic and priestly vows insomuch as they created a rift between the laymen and the clergy that they felt was a form of rudeness and snobbery, rather than a real delineation. And finally, their issue with Church authority was of the same vein as their disagreement over priestly vows: that there is no Scriptural evidence for it, and rather than being a guiding force for the people of God, it was a corruption of Christ’s desires to see a church of baptismal priests bringing the Word of God to all the nations (Mark 16:15).

Of interest to round out the Lutheran issues regarding the priesthood and its apparent failings is Luther’s “Exhortation to the Clergy of Augsburg” And John Eck’s Theses Ingolstadt. Luther, in his letter, enumerates the same issues as stated above, though in much more dire terms, particularly in regards to Confession and Penance, which under the Roman Church’s guidelines he compares to extortion.²⁹ He is, however, less focused on what he might call the fallacy of Orders, and more focused on the corruption of the clergy and what he sees as the selling of indulgences. John Eck’s 404 Theses, on the other hand, collects the statements of Luther, Zwingli, and other prominent Protestants into one great allegation against the Church, and makes several pointed statements regarding the priesthood:

268. The Church of Christ ignores the sacrament of ordination (Luther); it is a figment invented by men (Zwingli, Rieger, Amsterdo).
269. As many of us as have been baptized are all equally priests; and any layman can consecrate churches, confirm children, and so on (Luther, Zwingli).
270. Ordination is openly heretical and ought to be abolished (Melanchthon).³⁰

Bohr’s summative words regarding Luther’s beliefs regarding the priesthood help to tie all of these smaller issues into just a few overarching themes which will be responded to by the Council’s canons:

Luther denied that Orders considered as a sacrament is founded on Scripture. His own definition of church office was couched solely in terms of preaching, and baptism into the priesthood of all believers was sufficient of itself for providing community preachers and leaders. Thus for him ordination was no more than a rite by which to choose a speaker in the Church. From this follows logically a purely functional interpretation of office.³¹

The Catholic Perspective: Scriptural Roots of the Presbyterate

The Council’s first canon was aptly chosen as that which defends the Scriptural roots of the priesthood. While Luther’s argumentation focuses on the fact that there is purportedly no evidence of the priesthood or ordination in the New Testament, it would be remiss of us to fall into one or both of the traps that this leaves open for the unwary theologian: first, that the New Testament should be taken as completely disconnected from the Old Testament, and second that the Scriptures themselves also advocate the mentality of ad fontes that Luther picked up from the humanists of his day and age that led to the sola Scriptura movement.³²

It is worth beginning Scriptural research regarding the priesthood in the Old Testament, so that those references found in the New Testament can be more clearly distinguished as truly pertaining to the ministerial priesthood. Within the richness of the Old Testament texts are references that pertain to the more immediate Levitical priesthood and those that foreshadow the priesthood of Jesus Christ, from which all ministerial priests have their source.

Adam himself begins this priestly tradition by answering the call of God before the Fall to work and guard the Garden of Eden. These two Hebrew words are regularly used in the rest of scripture to denote work that is particularly undertaken by a priest: “Given the priestly character of this terminology in the context of the whole of Scripture, we see that from the very beginning Adam is being put into the Garden of Eden as the primordial priest.”³³ Adam is the beginning of the patriarchal line of priests whose job it is to work and guard the land, act as father for his people, and also to uphold the covenantal relationship with God by way of sacrifice. Thus, the primordial priesthood of Adam and the patriarchs is about the relationship between fatherhood, sacrifice, and covenant.³⁴ These are aspects of this ministry that will endure to the time of Jesus and the establishment of the priesthood of the New Covenant.

During the time of the Exodus, after the great sin of worshipping the golden calf, there was a shift: no longer can the firstborn sons be charged with growing into the role of patriarchal priests: “Notice that the ministerial priestly status of the firstborn of Israel is being taken away from them, that they are being laicized and hereafter the ministerial priesthood will be fulfilled by the tribe of Levi under the direction of the sons of Aaron.”³⁵ The priestly role of the Levites included mediation between God and the tribes of Israel, working and guarding the Tabernacle and later the Temple, and particularly offering sacrifice on behalf of the people. The Israelites were to confess their sins to the priest, and he was to take the animal that the penitent had brought forth and offer it in expiation for their sins (Lev 5:1–13). If he did not, the penitent would continue to bear his own iniquity (Lev 5:1). This was a regular occurrence, which happened in tandem with the once-a-year offering of Yom Kippur on behalf of the whole people of God, wherein the sins of the people were laid upon one lamb sacrificed to Azazel in the desert, and the other offered on the altar to the Lord (Lev 16). From the time of Moses through the kingship of David and his heirs, these Levitical priests continue in this duty toward the people (with minor modifications). David, during the earliest part of his rule, begins to take up the same priestly mantle that his early predecessor Melchizedek also bore: he makes Jerusalem the liturgical center for the people of Israel by bringing up the ark into the city; he himself offers the sacrifices made in honor of the Lord as the ark comes up, wearing the ephod, a priestly garment, and then offering bread and meat, or in a possible alternate translation, bread and wine, just as Melchizedek did.³⁶ Psalm 110, likely written about and for King David, mentions him being a priest in the line of Melchizedek as well, and Psalm 89 speaks of God making him a first-born son, which is likely God’s renewal of the line of priests through David, as before the Levites were brought into the priesthood, the first-born sons of Israel filled that role.³⁷

The priesthood of the Old Testament does not suddenly disappear at the beginning of the New Testament; Jesus and his contemporaries were living in that covenant with the Levitical priests serving the people. And Jesus, in the line of David and the line of Melchizedek, will bring their priesthood into the New Covenant in his blood. The Protestants were correct in their interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews which names Christ as the High Priest, but where they err is in believing that he would not establish a way for his people to remain in relationship with him, namely, the priesthood of the New Covenant.

The Apostles are called by Jesus to do exactly this. They are not simply special disciples, who are taught all of the same things that the others are; they are brought close to Christ to study him, to learn the heavenly mysteries through him, and to then pass them on after Christ’s Ascension. They were the ones privileged with the knowledge of who Jesus truly was (though they could not understand it fully until later) and who he called friends (John 15:15). But these were men called twice: first to follow Jesus and learn his ways and love him, and second to be sent out on mission in a particular way, to preach the Word and cast out demons (Mark 3:15). They were formed in “Jesus’ seminary” before being sent out to minister in his name in a way that was particular to the Twelve, as the beginnings of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.³⁸ This is the priesthood that Jesus Christ is bringing into reality in his work with the Apostles. And while it is true that the ordination rite is not plucked exactly from the New Testament, the Apostles are indeed consecrated for a special purpose (John 17:17): Jesus asks that the Father consecrate (hagiazō) the Apostles at the Last Supper, and the same verb is used not only in John 10:36 when Jesus is consecrated by the Father to do his will, but also in the Old Testament consecration of the priests (Exod 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; Lev 8:12, 30).³⁹ No other disciples are set aside in this way, even though all are called to spread the Gospel (Matt 5:13–16). Therefore, this distinguishing action of Christ cannot be said to be for every single Christian; rather, he must be preparing this group for particular work on behalf of the people of God.

Within this particular work was a task which had previously been the work of the Levitical priesthood: the power to remit or retain sins (John 20:19–23). This is quite obviously a continuation of what the Levitical priests were doing on behalf of the people and clarifies further what the Lord told Moses and Aaron on the fifth chapter of Leviticus: that a man bears his own iniquity if he does not bring forth his sins. Jesus tells the Apostles that those sins they retain remain so. If man desires to enter heaven, then every sin must be remitted from his heart, meaning he must freely give them up into the hands of the priest who, in the Old Covenant, made reparation by the blood of animals, but who, in the New Covenant, makes reparation united to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The exact process changed in the person of Jesus Christ, but the intention to purify the hearts of men remained the same.

As the Pauline literature is the part of the New Testament that Luther relies so heavily on in order to attempt to disprove the priesthood, it behooves us to conclude this brief Scriptural analysis with the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters. While Paul’s ordination is not explicitly stated on the pages of Scripture, there are two important points to note: first, it’s highly probable that his ordination occurred during the events of the thirteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein he and Barnabas are sent out after receiving a special blessing, after which Paul is said to be both sent by the Holy Spirit and filled with the Spirit as well.⁴⁰ Regular blessings, even in the time of the Apostles, were not that which filled the blessed with the Holy Spirit; Baptism/Confirmation and Orders, on the other hand, most certainly would, and Paul has already been baptized for some time by that point. Second, Paul went to the Church in Jerusalem several times to report on the successes and failures of his time preaching; he, as an Apostle, comes to make sure that he is preaching in line with what the other Apostles are preaching, Apostles who, as we have already seen, were specially commissioned by Jesus Christ to serve the people in a priestly way: “From the first moment that Paul became a Christian, ministry choices were being made for him by Christ and communicated to him through the Church.”⁴¹

Thus Paul, as an ordained minister of the Church, has the right to speak on offering the Eucharistic sacrifice in his first letter to the Corinthians, when he recalls Jesus’s words that the priest celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Christ’s sacrifice (1 Cor 11:24). This re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross is the main duty of the priest, therefore if Jesus is calling for one to be done in memory of him, the necessity of the other naturally follows in order to see this mandate carried out.⁴²

Church Hierarchy: Mandate-Based Traditions (Post-Apostolic Through Fourth Century)

While it is now easy to see that Christ truly did seek to institute a priesthood to continue his ministry to the people of God, it is true that there is a paucity of information regarding the growth of the ecclesial hierarchy in Acts and the Letters, and the first century Church Fathers provide some additional detail but nothing fully exposited. Jesus Christ did lay the groundwork for a continued subsistence when it comes to the priesthood; but that groundwork did not also include the blueprints for exactly how it must grow. That was for the Apostles to interpret in light of their experiences with Jesus and their own growing understanding of God’s will for his Church.⁴³ This lack does not mean, however, that there is no early evidence of the Church hierarchy; Joseph Ratzinger states logically “how wrong it is to attempt to draw final conclusions from isolated texts of the New Testament. Neither the New Testament as a whole nor its individual authors follow a strict system of terminology. They grasp a thought from a particular perspective, but they do not systematize it.”⁴⁴ New Testament authors and first century Fathers were likely unconcerned with keeping record of such things because they were living it instead.⁴⁵ But let us look at what hierarchical knowledge was recorded and how it set a foundation for the future.

In Acts, the conversion rate following Pentecost required that the Apostles find more assistance in caring for the young Church. Therefore, they established the order of Deacons (Acts 6:1-7) to serve the poor among them most intentionally. The growth of the Order of Presbyters — and the use of the term presbyteros to speak about the Christian leaders/ministers instead of its original usage to speak of the Jewish priesthood — came more organically, as Thomas Lane describes:

As Acts progresses, we see a development as the Greek word presbyteros takes on an additional meaning . . . Since the word “presbyter” was used for leaders of Judaism but not for the priests employed in temple sacrifices, Christians could use it for their leadership and there would be no confusion with Jewish priests. With the passing of time, Christians understood that Christ’s death was a priestly sacrifice, as the Letter to the Hebrews confirms. This prepared the way for the application of priestly terminology to New Covenant ministers by Tertullian two centuries later. The change in meaning in the word presbyteros (the additional meaning it assumed to denote not only a Jewish elder but also a minister of the New Covenant) is certainly not unique in language.⁴⁶

Thus, the Christian leaders had always been fulfilling their priestly roles: overseeing the flock (Acts 20:28); anointing and praying over the sick (Jas 5:14); and being joined in mission with the Apostles/bishops (1 Pet 5:1). The terminology was simply slower to advance to match the theological realities already present.

Luke explicitly writes that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters in every church they founded (Acts 14:23).⁴⁷ However, in Paul’s Letters, he speaks to both the churches that he himself founded and to some who have never seen his face (Col 2:1), only providing indirect evidence of hierarchical structures already in place.⁴⁸ His letter to the Philippians is addressed to the people, their overseers (i.e. bishops), and their deacons (Phil 1:1); he implores the people of Thessalonica to respect their leaders “who labor among them, who are over them in the Lord, and who admonish them” (1 Thess 5:12); he reminds the people of Corinth that he laid the foundations upon which those who have followed him are currently building (1 Cor 3:6 and 10); and to the churches that he did not found, he still speaks to their leadership by addressing Epaphras and Archippus to be fellow servants of the people and of Jesus Christ (Col 1:7 and 4:12 and 17), and by sending greetings to those such as Andronicus and Junias in Rome who are already well known to the Apostles and therefore likely presbyters themselves (Rom 16:7).⁴⁹ It is therefore extremely evident that Paul is not creating his own charismatic-based church, but rather confirming that the ecclesiastical structure imparted by the Apostles to begin with is indeed from the Lord, through the power of the Holy Spirit.⁵⁰ And while the Church structure has yet to evolve into the monarchical structure it still holds today, Paul’s Pastoral Letters — First and Second Timothy and Titus — provide yet further elucidation by furnishing overseers, presbyters, and deacons with pastoral care and directions, “revealing the importance of diligent ecclesiastical governance.”⁵¹

Before moving to look at post-Scriptural sources from the first century, it is also worth mentioning the Scriptural roots of both the ordination rite and the Apostolic succession. As previously mentioned, the rite of ordination as it stands in the liturgy is not directly from the Scriptures; however, the imposition of hands is a major piece of the puzzle as regards the organic development of this ritual action. In the Pastoral Letters, Paul admonishes Timothy not to neglect the gift he received “which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you” (1 Tim 4:14). Additionally he reminds Timothy to be discerning about who he in turn lays hands on (1 Tim 5:22) and Titus to remember to appoint presbyters in every town, likely by the laying on of hands as well (Titus 1:5).⁵² Thomas Lane ends his exegesis regarding the laying on of hands well in bringing sacramental realities into the discussion: “The laying on of hands became a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit sacramentally and was accompanied by prayer . . . Already in the Pastorals, we see the essentials of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are in place: the laying on of hands accompanied by prophetic utterances, which I take to be the Prayer of Consecration (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).”⁵³ In the same vein of transference of authority via the laying on of hands, one can speak of the succession evident in Paul’s words, particularly when he entrusts Ephesus to its presbyters, assuming that he will not be able to visit them again. Ratzinger calls his address in Acts 20:18–35 “basically an outline of the concept of apostolic succession. It is conceived as a kind of testament in which Paul confides the community to the faithful hands of the priests and, in words of exhortation, transfers his responsibility to them.”⁵⁴

Some of the earliest Church Fathers, again, did not speak directly of the hierarchy, but rather implied it in their writings to the Church. Two early examples of this are the writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. Clement of Rome, upon hearing of the dismissal of some of the overseers/presbyters by the Corinthians, wrote to the church to chastise the action taken. He reminded them that Jesus Christ their Lord, sent by God the Father, had chosen the Apostles himself, and that the Apostles in turn had been given the authority by that choice to choose presbyters for the Church as it continued to grow.⁵⁵ Following this admonishment he gave the first account of Apostolic succession, stating that “[the Apostles] appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”⁵⁶ Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans written only a few years after Clement’s martyrdom, appealed to the people to show respect to their bishops as they would to Jesus Christ, and to the presbyters as they would to the Apostles.⁵⁷ Such advocacy for respect and continued obedience to the episcopate and the presbyterate would certainly not be required if they were not men of authority whose work it was to administer the Eucharist and Penance and to continue the catechesis of the people to whom they were sent.

The spread of Christianity saw a continual growth of these communities established by the Apostles and their immediate successors, to the point where, in larger cities like Rome, approximately five percent of the population was Christian by about 250 AD. This created a need to distribute work among presbyters, deacons, and men of the lower orders — subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors, and porters — that were developing as the Church did.⁵⁸ But, as it often still does, the institutionalization of the Church into these tiers of service gave rise to a type of classicism/clericalism between the clergy and other Christians, as well as to a passivity toward ministry, which solidified closer to the fourth century, when bishops began to find themselves sometimes serving as authorities in civil matters, and endured until the time of Luther’s rise to infamy.⁵⁹

It is also during the third and fourth centuries that the increase in minor orders led to different types of laying on of hands, to distinguish the minor from the major.⁶⁰ In the same time period, Church Fathers were writing more on the spirituality of the priesthood, and how there needed to be a stricter code of morality in choosing those to be ordained.⁶¹ This was the beginning of the blossoming of sacerdotal theology, led by such theologians as Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and perhaps most significantly John Chrysostom, whose work On the Priesthood, writes Bohr, “provided the first theological and systematic treatise on sacerdotal ministry.”⁶² His focus is particularly on the priest’s pastoral mission to the people, both in his way of living and in his offering of the Sacraments.⁶³ By the end of the fourth century, two types of spirituality had grown up surrounding the priesthood: one centered on the Eucharist and its creation of a Eucharistic people whose gaze was on heaven, and the other on the desire for mystical union of the soul with God wherein man struggles with his passions in order to tame them and attain moral perfection.⁶⁴ Thus the theology of the priesthood began to expand past serving the immediate catechetical needs of the people to a fuller sense of vocation for each order. The expansion of this theology alongside the expansion of the Church itself — and therefore a need for the growth of the presbyterate in response — can be seen now as quite the dichotomy. Expansion necessarily means inclusion of those whose faith is not tested by the fires of persecution, and is therefore more casual or passive, as noted previously.

While this is the point at which some of Luther’s valid issues with the clergy likely began to surface — increased indifference, clerical involvement in politics, and the like — it is also a time of growing hierarchy and increasing understanding of the priesthood and its role in the Church. Thomas Lane’s excellent exegesis teaches us to read in the full context of both Scripture and the early Fathers the lived reality of the structures of the Church. Luther’s arguments about confession and penance are also impaired when placed in contrast to the enduring understanding of the people’s need for confession that is full and diligent, and for the priest’s continued role in helping them to offer that up to the Lord.

The Continued Strengthening of the Presbyteral Understanding (6th Century–15th Century)

This may seem like too great a span of years to cover in one short section; however, while there is theological development in many areas over this span of over nine hundred years, the priesthood saw a mostly steady continuation of its theology, with a few notable occurrences. As Aidan Nichols rightly observes, “the theology of Order in the Western church between Augustine and the early twelfth-century beginnings of Christian Scholasticism was a somewhat restricted affair.”⁶⁵ Let us look briefly at those notable occurrences for the sake of a fuller understanding of Luther’s attacks and the Church’s response.

Two prevalent themes emerge in post-Augustine, pre-Scholastic presbyteral theology. First, as was begun in the third and fourth centuries, was a more insistent call for the priest’s life to fall into moral conformation with those sacred actions he is called upon to perform and Sacraments he must administer to the people.⁶⁶ Particularly, theologians desired that there be a greater sacramental worldview regarding the ordination ritual itself in order that the priest may see the fullness of his call with greater reverence. This theme, despite being something that has been called for through several centuries, would not receive widespread notice until the Council of Trent itself. The second theme is the escalating intensity of belief as regarded the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the understanding of this Sacrament as the “priestly task par excellence.”⁶⁷ This profound and growing love for the Eucharist and for the priest’s role in administering Christ to the people was juxtaposed with greater liturgical abuses, including “undisciplined multiplication” of stipended Masses and a growing cultist phenomenon of belief that Masses said at certain times and in certain orders would give “magical” benefits.⁶⁸

At the same time as regards the Sacrament of Penance, there was an increase in private penances, which eventually came to be the norm, as we know now, replacing exomologesis which had been the norm for so long leading up to this point, and in conjunction with the more legalistic language of the day, causing a more juridical view of the penitential proceedings.⁶⁹ If this was the perceived priority of the Sacrament in Luther’s experience, one can understand why he felt that it was not something that God, who is mercy itself, would have wanted for his people. But as has always been the case, man cannot destroy the will of God, and God works all things for good (Rom 8:28).

The final foci of interest during this time were on the Ordination rite itself and what it meant for the men upon whom it was bestowed. According to the Scholastic theologians, Holy Orders must be counted among the Sacraments due to the fact that there is a ritual, liturgical action in place already for its administration; it conveys more than an office but a spiritual capacity that not every Christian can or does have by right of their Baptism; and finally that it “brings with it not only office-with-spiritual power but also the grace of Christ,” meaning that there is a certain seal of grace that is given in order for this man to accomplish the works of Christ even in his own mediocrity.⁷⁰ Thomas Aquinas and contemporaries would call this the Sacramental character, or seal, of the Sacrament. The seal — which should be taken to be something that has always been present but which is now being expounded upon more fully — is that mark which prepares the recipient for the graces necessary to carry out Christ’s ministry and marks a new relationship in Christ for the priest.⁷¹ Thus the theology of the priesthood, really all the major and minor orders,⁷² had continued quite steadily in the subsequent centuries following the establishment of the Apostolic succession.

With all of this mounting evidence of the Church’s well founded and supported sacerdotal theology, there is no question that the Church’s response to Luther’s theological inaccuracies was as firm as it was. However, as regards some of the abuses that Luther’s onslaught brought to light, the Church did have a response of openness to change for the better.

The Church’s Response: Trent until the Second Vatican Council

Having already taken into account the Church’s canons given at the Council of Trent, we can now look beyond them to the Church’s long-term responses, and the increase in theological undertaking as regards the priesthood.

The Council, and thus the Church, did not simply create the canons to refute Luther and continue in the same way as she did previously. Immediately following the Council, the synodal fathers did not only release the canons; there was the additional penning of the Decrees on Reformation, which accompanied the canons, but which are not as often touched upon in historical analyses.⁷³ It particularly called those charged with the care of souls to not only see themselves as administrators but as shepherds of their people who are obliged to preach, teach, and bring the Sacraments to all their people and give special care to the poor. Additionally, the Decree insists that the bishop himself must also preach to the people on a regular basis, particularly on Sunday, Holy Days, and every day during Lent and Advent.⁷⁴

Perhaps the most important part of the decree for the scope of this article is the directive for the establishment of seminaries with proper regulations and theological disciplines, most particularly the study of Sacred Scripture.⁷⁵ As this article has highlighted, a proper understanding of the fullness of Scripture first and all other theological disciplines second is absolutely necessary not only for the priest but also for the entire Mystical Body of the Church. Without priests well formed in the faith, there comes the opportunity for great division, if the Reformation has taught us nothing else. Other theological elements of the teachings on Holy Orders were mostly renditions of Thomas Aquinas’ work. Bohr comments: “teaching of the theology of Holy Orders was but a repetition of the structure and doctrinal elements of [Aquinas’] treatment.”⁷⁶

Expansions in understanding the priesthood came in the form of spiritual works from such well-known theologians as Vincent de Paul, Ignatius of Loyola, and John Eudes. Such spiritual works as Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises and Eudes The Priest, His Dignity, and Obligations became integral in the newly formed seminaries, that the seminarians might focus not only on the theological realities of the Church and her Tradition, but also on living their impending vocation well and in the spirit of the post-conciliar desire for priests of meticulous morality who acted as worthy intermediaries between man and God, following in the footsteps of Christ himself.⁷⁷ There was yet again an elevated sense of the priest’s importance, and one that, with these spiritual works, they were being called to live up to as best they could. John Eudes often states the importance of the priest’s moral intensity, and also equates him often to the person of Christ in the lives of those he serves: “You are the eyes, the mouth, the tongue, the heart of the Church, in other words of Jesus Christ Himself . . . You are His eyes for through you the Good Shepherd watches over His flock . . . you are His mouth . . . through you He speaks to His people . . . you are His heart. Through you He imparts true life . . . what marvels, what favors, what greatness in the sacerdotal dignity!”⁷⁸ Perhaps, though, one of the most intently entreated duties of the priesthood during the era leading up to the Second Vatican Council was the call for priests who preached. Whether or not this was in direct response to Martin Luther’s own admonition, it was and remains an important duty of the priest to teach the people in their preaching about the deepest mysteries of the faith that most cannot attain in their own lives outside of being able to study theology themselves. Congregations should be well led by their pastors to the fullness of God’s love, and this outcry for it following the Council of Trent shows a desperate need for it seeking to be fulfilled.

Conclusion

There is certainly much more that can be said as regards the development of sacerdotal theology. While the immediate responses to Martin Luther at Trent were stoic and concise, they upheld the reality of the priesthood that was, if not extremely well exposited, certainly was already part of the lived tradition of the Church. In the more far-reaching work of the Church, church fathers and theologians, in their own ways, responded to the outcry from the Protestants that were actually in need of addressing. Every problem was not and has not been solved; but there is certainly greater work being done in seminary formation and in the writings of lay theologians to give the people of God greater access to the Sacraments and the teachings of the Church. There is in such a study as this room for additional work to be done as regards the contribution of the Second Vatican Council and its ramifications that have followed in the area of sacerdotal theology.