Rites of Ordination: Their History and Theology

There are eight main ancient families of ordination rites within the churches of the East: those of Alexandria (the Coptic rite, also used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), Armenia, Constantinople (the Byzantine rite), East Syria (the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Church), Georgia, Lebanon (the Maronite rite), and two traditions from West Syria (the Syrian Orthodox Church, often previously called the Jacobite rite, and the Melkite Church). Like all the other liturgies of the various Eastern churches, the ordination rites of the different traditions have undergone some development and expansion in the course of their history, and because the oldest manuscripts date only from the eighth century onward—and in some traditions are very much later than that¹—some effort is required to uncover their earlier forms. The older manuscripts tend to provide only for bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, and readers, although some of them lack a rite for a bishop (probably because it was not regularly needed in each diocese but only by the patriarch), and some also include forms for deaconesses and chorepiscopoi (rural bishops). Later pontificals often add rites for appointment to other offices, among them cantors, archdeacons, abbots and abbesses, metropolitans, and patriarchs.²

Despite the superficial diversity of the various traditions, they display many similarities of structure and sometimes of text as well. Some of these resemblances are the consequence of the later influence of one tradition on another, and especially the spread of West Syrian and/or Byzantine features to other churches, which can sometimes be detected by the fact that they duplicate the equivalent indigenous liturgical units. Nevertheless, behind all this can be seen a common ritual pattern from which they all appear to derive, a pattern that is shared to a great extent by the earliest Western sources, too. This widespread convergence inspires confidence that the pattern is ancient and may be traced back to at least the end of the fourth century if not before. The rites for a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon all once consisted of:

In the case of the ordination of a bishop may be added the imposition of the gospel book prior to the imposition of the hand and his solemn seating at the conclusion of the rite, about which we have spoken in the previous chapter. This basic pattern subsequently became obscured by the addition of further elements to the rites, and especially by the tendency to acquire additional ordination prayers and in some cases to associate the imposition of the hand with the proclamation and bidding rather than the prayer (see further below).

PROCLAMATION OF THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION AND ACCLAMATION OF ASSENT BY THE PEOPLE

The important place accorded to the election of a candidate for ordination in early Christianity should not be understood as pointing to some notion of the ideal of democracy, nor, at least at first, to the principle that a congregation had the right to choose its own ministers. Nor was it seen as in any way opposed to the divine calling of a minister, but on the contrary it was understood as the means by which God’s choice of a person for a particular ecclesiastical office was discerned and made manifest. As both patristic writings and the prayers in the rites themselves make clear, it was always considered that it was God who chose and ordained the ministers through the action of the church. There was thus no dichotomy between actions “from below” and “from above.” The church’s discernment of God’s choice might on occasion even override an individual’s own lack of a sense of vocation, and it contrasts with more modern views of the primacy of the “interior call.” Once the divine choice had been revealed in this way, then the church might proceed to pray that God would bestow on the one whom he had appointed the requisite qualities for the effective discharge of the office.

As time went by, however, as we have noted in the first chapter, the ritual of prayer and the imposition of the hand came to be thought of as the real act of ordination, the means by which the office itself was bestowed on the candidate, with election merely as a dispensable preliminary to it. However, a distinction in terminology still tended to be retained between the ordination of bishops, presbyters, and deacons on the one hand and admission to the minor orders on the other, when they, too, adopted the imposition of hands, cheirotonia being used for the former but epithesis for the latter.

Moreover, in spite of the decline of the electoral process, vestiges of the former arrangement can still be detected among the preliminaries of the later ordination rites of the Eastern churches (and, as we shall see in the next chapter, in the West, too). It appears that originally at the election of a bishop the people had cried out, Axios, “Worthy!” because the fifth-century ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius recounts that, when the Arian Demophilos was appointed as Bishop of Constantinople in 370, many of the people shouted Anaxios, “Unworthy!” instead of Axios.³ The oldest manuscript of the Armenian rite for the ordination of deacons and presbyters (ninth/tenth century) preserves a memory of this same procedure for them, too. The rite begins with an announcement of the choice of the candidate, made by a deacon in the case of an ordination to the diaconate and by a presbyter in the case of an ordination to the presbyterate.

The final statement was doubtless originally intended to be a question, to which a congregational response was expected, as it still is the version in another manuscript probably dating from no later than the thirteenth century:

Some such formulary was apparently already known to Pseudo-Dionysius in the late fifth/early sixth century, as he refers to an anarresis, “proclamation,” in his description of the rite of ordination: “The bishop makes the proclamation of the ordinations and the ordinands, the mystery signifying that the consecrator, beloved by God, is the interpreter of the divine choice. He does not lead the ordinand to ordination by his own grace, but he is moved by God for all the consecrations.”⁶ Other allusions to “the divine grace” in connection with ordination imply that it may have been in use at least in Antioch before the end of the fourth century.⁷

Although the Armenian tradition does not preserve a rite for a bishop in the earliest manuscript, the later episcopal rite also retains the same triple congregational response,⁸ and this acclamation of assent occurs in other Eastern traditions as well, but now moved to the end of the whole act of ordination, presumably once the people’s role in the election itself had disappeared. The earliest example of this switch is in the rite for a bishop in the fifth-century Testamentum Domini.⁹

In the early Armenian rite the formula provided for the announcement of the results of the election were then repeated in a variant form by the bishop, but omitting the words “he is worthy” at the end and instead linked to an invitation to pray for the candidate: “I lay hands upon him. Do you all offer up your prayers that he be worthy to serve in the rank of the diaconate before God and the holy altar/in the rank of priesthood without blemish before the Lord all the days of his life.” A similar combined proclamation/bidding formulary exists in one form or another in all later Eastern rites for bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and in some cases is extended to the minor orders as well.¹⁰ This combination presumably occurred as the result of the displacement of the congregational acclamation of assent to the end of the rite.

Bernard Botte argued that its most primitive version was that in the eighth-century Byzantine rite, where it is said to be read from a scroll. Its wording is identical in the conferral of all three offices apart from the name of the particular order:

Botte thus overlooked the probability that it had previously existed as two independent liturgical units and even went on to make the implausible claim that it was intended to be the sacramental form of ordination itself! He admitted that it was pronounced by a deacon in the later Coptic and Syrian Orthodox rites, and so could not have that function there, and was also in a preliminary position in the Byzantine rites for the presbyterate and diaconate in the eighth-century Barberini manuscript. But he judged that the Byzantine rite for the episcopate, together with the East Syrian and Maronite rites, had retained the true primitive usage in which the proclamation was made by the presiding bishop during the imposition of the hand. Its apparent relegation to a less central position in the other rites he believed to have been the result of the introduction of secondary elements—a second imposition of the hand in the Syrian Orthodox rite and the ordination prayers themselves in the Byzantine tradition: these tended to push the formulary into the shade.¹²

Most other scholars have rightly rejected Botte’s theory. Pierre-Marie Gy pointed out that Pseudo-Dionysius made a clear distinction between the proclamation, which was common to all three orders, and the invocations (epikleses), which were proper to each of them and through which the consecrations were effected. Gy suggested that the formulary grew rather than declined in importance in the course of the centuries as the ordination prayers came to be recited in a low voice for reasons of reverence: the second Byzantine prayer was already recited in this way while the litany was still being said in the eighth-century Barberini manuscript, and later the first prayer too would be performed in a similar manner.¹³

Not only was Botte applying to the rites a completely Western and anachronistic sacramental theology, but he failed to see that the formulary was simply a bidding to which the imposition of the hand had in some traditions later become attached from its proper association with the ordination prayer. Moreover, he was mistaken about the East Syrian rite, as the formulary there is recited before the imposition of the hand, as it is also in the eleventh-century Grottaferrata manuscript of the Byzantine rite at the ordination of a bishop as well as in the rites for the presbyterate and diaconate. In that manuscript the version for a bishop contains an opening phrase that strengthens its association with the electoral process: “By the vote and approval of the most divinely-beloved bishops and the most holy presbyters and deacons…”¹⁴ It seems highly improbable that this variation could have been a late addition, especially as the election had, in practice, been restricted to the episcopal college alone for many centuries. It is therefore likely that this is a survival from the more ancient tradition, which had already undergone some modification in the Barberini manuscript.

Although Botte was right that the Byzantine version eventually came to be adopted in one form or another by all other Eastern rites, it is clear that prior to this, various traditions had their own equivalents of it. Thus, while the Coptic rites seem to have inherited the Byzantine formulary through the West Syrian tradition, the rite for a bishop there has an extensive proclamation/bidding of its own. The Georgian rite similarly has a rather lengthy formulary of the same kind, pronounced by a deacon, which was used, with appropriate modifications, in appointment to all three orders. This may have originated in the Jerusalem tradition, and has no doubt undergone some expansion and elaboration in the course of its history. It is followed by another formulary, said by the bishop, which has some resemblance to the Byzantine one: “The grace of God heals the sick, satisfies them that are in need: hands are laid on this our child.”¹⁵

This combination of proclamation and bidding created a sort of bridge between the two parts of the ordination process, announcing the result of the election and inviting the congregation to pray for the ordinand. Its wording confirms that the exercise of human choice was thought of as manifesting the divine will, and that the ordination was seen as effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit acting in response to the prayer of the church.

One would naturally expect that the prayer of the people, in one form or another, would follow the bidding, and this certainly seems to have been the original practice, but in the course of time the importance of prayer by the whole community in ordination seems to have been lost. In some cases another presidential prayer now intervenes, in others it has fallen out altogether or left only a trace of its former existence.

Thus, in the Barberini manuscript of Byzantine rites, the triple response, “Lord, have mercy,” is explicitly mentioned as following the proclamation/bidding only in the case of the episcopate, but it may also have been practiced in the other rites that employ the same formulary (presbyters, deacons, and deaconesses), even though it is not specified in the rubrics. In every case, however, a litany with appropriate petitions for the ordinands appears, not directly after the bidding, but after the first of two ordination prayers has been said. This unusual arrangement suggests that the first ordination prayer is a later addition to the rites that destroyed the natural liturgical sequence and left the Kyrie response high and dry. Though such litanies were normally led by a deacon, in the rite for the episcopate a bishop fulfills this function, and in the rite for the presbyterate it is undertaken by a presbyter.¹⁶

In the early Armenian rite the litany similarly intervenes between the first and second ordination prayers for deacons and presbyters. This arrangement is very probably the result of Byzantine influence on the structure of the services, and not part of the indigenous tradition, and it does not persist in later manuscripts. In the East Syrian rites the ordination prayers follow directly after the biddings, while the Syrian Orthodox rites have only the response, “Lord, have mercy,” following the proclamation/bidding, but no litany as such. The Coptic and Maronite rites are similar, except that in the case of the episcopate in the former, a full litany with a special suffrage for the ordinand does still intervene after the bidding.¹⁷

In the ancient Georgian rite, the deacon who pronounces the bidding is directed to say three times, “Lord, have mercy and make him worthy.” This was doubtless originally a congregational response, and may be a conflation of two responses that were earlier quite separate, an acclamation of assent to the candidate’s worthiness in reply to the announcement of his election and the normal form of supplication. A litany occurs here in the text at the beginning of the whole collection of prayers, but with a rubric that directed it to be used at the ordination of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Presumably it was intended to be said between the bidding and the ordination prayers. Finally, in the Melkite ritual a threefold “Lord, have mercy” follows the first bidding, and then comes the Byzantine proclamation/bidding formulary and a litany, except in the rite for the diaconate where the litany comes in what was very probably its original position, prior to Byzantine influence, directly after the first bidding. Like that bidding, the litany is said by a presbyter at the ordination of a presbyter, and by the chief deacon at other ordinations.¹⁸

This ceremony, found in the Apostolic Constitutions and other fourth-century sources,¹⁹ occurs in all later Eastern rites²⁰ but was performed by one or more of the bishops themselves rather than by deacons, as in the Apostolic Constitutions. However, as it was also deacons who performed it at Rome,²¹ that seems to confirm that the original custom had been as described in the Apostolic Constitutions and that Eastern practice had subsequently changed in order to increase episcopal involvement in the rite. In the Syrian Orthodox and Maronite rites, two bishops hold the book open over the head of the ordinand during the imposition of the hand. In the Byzantine rite it is performed by the archbishop, with the other bishops present also touching the book. Moreover, the open book is here laid on the head and neck of the ordinand and apparently understood as symbolizing “the yoke of the Gospel” that the new bishop received, since in later manuscripts of the rite this allusion is incorporated into the first ordination prayer.²² In the East Syrian rite the archbishop is directed to place the book on the back of the ordinand in such a way that “it faces the one who is to read from it,” and a gospel reading from it follows, after which the book is closed and left on the ordinand’s back during the imposition of the hand and the prayers.²³ These modifications reinforce our earlier judgment that the real meaning of the ceremony had been lost, its form being deliberately altered in order to make it more intelligible.

The earliest allusion to the use of the sign of the cross in ordination is found in the Canons of Hippolytus, where the prayer for a deacon contains the clause, “make him triumph over all the powers of the Devil by the sign of your cross with which you sign him.”²⁴ Its existence at Antioch at the ordination of bishops in the fourth century is attested by John Chrysostom,²⁵ and the “cruciform seal” immediately after the imposition of the hand is mentioned by Pseudo-Dionysius as being common to all the major orders (De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.2), with later Eastern rites confirming this to be the case, except that it normally precedes rather than follows the imposition of the hand. The use of the sign of the cross in early baptismal rituals may have provided the precedent for its adoption in Eastern ordination practice, especially as it is given a similar interpretation: the Canons of Hippolytus implies that it was seen as apotropaic, while Pseudo-Dionysius says that it signified “the cessation of all carnal desires and the imitation of the divine life.”

As indicated earlier, some Eastern rites display a tendency to associate the beginning of the imposition of the hand (usually specified as the right hand) with the first formula spoken by the presiding bishop, which may be called a prayer in the text even if it is not strictly speaking one, rather than with what appears to have been the original ordination prayer. This is the case in the early Armenian rites for deacons and presbyters, in the eighth-century Byzantine rite for a bishop (but not those for presbyters and deacons) and in the Maronite and Melkite rites, where the imposition of the hand begins at the proclamation/bidding formula.²⁶

In every Eastern rite, however, it is the presiding bishop alone who lays his hand on the ordinand, and only in a few cases are there signs of obviously secondary attempts to associate others with him in this action. In the East Syrian rite for a bishop, the other bishops place their right hands on the ordinand’s sides, and in the Coptic rite they lay their hands on the ordinand’s arms and not on his head. In the Armenian rite for a presbyter, a rubric directs that after the ordinand kneels down, “the priests lay their hands upon his” [sic], leaving where the hands are to be placed unclear. A parallel rubric in the rite for the diaconate specifies that it is on “his hands.”²⁷ Later manuscripts of the presbyteral rite, however, while exhibiting some further confusion over the rubric, seem to agree that it is the ordinand’s shoulders on which the other priests are to lay a hand.²⁸ Both the Syrian Orthodox and Maronite rites display a unique feature in relation to the imposition of the hand for all three orders: the presiding bishop extends his hands over the consecrated bread and wine three times before proceeding to lay his right hand on the ordinand. This ceremony seems to have been introduced in order to express the idea that it was not the presiding bishop himself but Christ who ordained his ministers, and it was his spiritual power that was bestowed on them.²⁹

Although none of the patristic sources make any reference to the posture to be adopted by ordinands during the ordination prayer and imposition of the hand, Pseudo-Dionysius stated that candidates for the episcopate and presbyterate were to kneel on both knees, and a candidate for the diaconate on his right knee (De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.2) This is supported by the more extensive rubrics found in some of the later texts, except for the Armenian, which speaks instead of the left knee for a deacon.³⁰

As indicated earlier, there is a common tendency in the Eastern rites for ordination prayers to multiply, either by the addition what may have been a local alternative to the principal prayer or by the incorporation of prayers from foreign sources. Thus, the Byzantine rite has two ordination prayers for each order, one immediately after the bidding and the second, probably more original one, after the litany.³¹ The oldest Armenian rites have adopted the same pattern (doubtless from Byzantine influence) although the prayers are different in content and the rite for presbyters has a third prayer after the liturgy of the word. The East Syrian rites also have two prayers, the first located even before the bidding itself and identical in every case except for the name of the office being conferred. The Georgian rites have three prayers for each order, one of them drawn from the Testamentum Domini and another with parallels to the principal prayer in the East Syrian rite. In the Syrian Orthodox tradition, several preparatory and supplementary prayers have grown up before and after the principal ordination prayer. The Coptic rites combine prayers from this source with material from the Apostolic Constitutions. The Maronite rites each have a number of prayers, suggesting a long process of accretion, some of them analogous to prayers in the Syrian Orthodox tradition, others with resemblances to ones in the Melkite tradition, and others with no known parallel. One prayer in the rite for deacons is a version of a Byzantine one, and one in the rite for a bishop is derived from the Apostolic Constitutions. Something similar is true of the Melkite rite. Some prayers resemble Georgian texts (which has led to the suggestion that they both derive from Jerusalem³²), others are similar to Byzantine prayers, others to those in the Maronite rites, and still others have no clear parallels.³³

In the case of prayers for a bishop, there is evidence of an even closer literary connection between the different rites. In five of the six traditions that have rites for the episcopate in their oldest manuscripts, there is a substantial amount of common material in one of their prayers. The following is the Byzantine version, the elements common to the other prayers being indicated by the use of italics:

Although part of this is an allusion to John 10:15 and a quotation from Romans 2:19-20, it is inconceivable that each tradition would have lighted on the latter independently, especially as it is a very strange passage to choose for this purpose, because in its original context it had nothing to do with ordination or ministry but formed part of a critical passage directed toward the Jews. Although the Byzantine version is the shortest of the prayers containing the common material and so might be thought to have been the source of all the others, this is unlikely in its present form, as there are at least two peculiarities that suggest it, too, has undergone some modification: it is addressed, not to God the Father, but to Christ (“you, the true shepherd”)³⁵ and its description of teachers as those “who approach your throne to offer sacrifice and oblation” is a strange mixture of images, and appears to be a secondary adaptation made in order to incorporate a cultic dimension rather than a part of the primary stratum of the prayer.

The presence of such similar euchological material in very diverse contexts suggests that the nucleus of this prayer is as old as some of the patristic sources and was in established use before the divisions that took place in the Eastern churches during the fifth century. It seems to have been ancient enough to have developed in at least two distinct forms prior to that time, with a Byzantine/Coptic trajectory on the one hand³⁶ and a Georgian/East Syrian (and perhaps Syrian Orthodox) version on the other. This second strand strengthened the christological dimension of the prayer (a development which we have already observed in the case of some of the patristic texts), introduced an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit on the ordinand, and like the prayer in the Canons of Hippolytus, added a reference to the healing ministry of the bishop.

Thus, the two images of the episcopal office that seemingly constitute part of the original nucleus of the prayer are those of shepherd (as was true in the patristic sources, but here brought into explicit association with Christ the true shepherd), and teacher/guardian of the truth (a contrast with most of the patristic texts). Cultic/liturgical imagery seems to have had no place at all in the earliest stratum, but to have been gradually introduced at a later stage in the various traditions. In some cases a clumsy fusion of ideas took place, as with the teaching and priestly themes in the opening of the Byzantine prayer noted above, or the notion of the “perfect priest after the example of the true shepherd” in the Georgian version. In other cases, a simple addition was made, such as the insertion of “priests” after the Pauline “apostles, prophets, and teachers” in the East Syrian prayer. In the Syrian Orthodox prayer there was direct substitution, with, for example, “every priestly order” replacing “teachers,” which resulted in an all but total obliteration of the earlier themes.

Although, as we have said, there has obviously been some borrowing from one source to another in the prayers for presbyters, no common nucleus seems to underlie the majority as it did in the case of the prayers for a bishop, but they appear to stem from several quite distinct euchological traditions, no doubt reflecting the considerable regional diversity in early ordination practice.

The second of the two prayers in the Byzantine rite seems to be the earlier. It also displays strong similarities to the first prayer in the Melkite rite and also to a longer prayer in the Syrian Orthodox rite, suggesting a common source for all three.³⁷ Unlike the equivalent prayers for a bishop and for a deacon, it does have an explicit petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit, but unlike the patristic texts, it does not define the presbyterate by means of biblical typology, probably because nothing could be found that was appropriate to the nature that the office was thought to have.

The presbyterate is not portrayed as a collegial governing body but instead the prayer employs strictly functional language. The use of the expression “exercise the sacred ministry (hierourgein) of the word,” echoing Romans 15:16, “exercising the sacred ministry of the Gospel of God,” strongly suggests that the priestly dimension of the office was seen as finding its fulfillment at least as much in the preaching of the word as in sacramental functions,³⁹ and this corresponds to what we know of the nature of the ordained ministry at Antioch in the fourth century, where presbyters took a prominent part in preaching but eucharistic presidency seems still to have been normally an episcopal prerogative.⁴⁰ The other versions of this prayer modify the references to proclaiming the Gospel and exercising the ministry of the word, because this later ceased to a function normally exercised by presbyters, and introduce the terms “priest” or “priesthood” instead, since these began to be used unequivocally to denote the presbyterate rather than the episcopate in the East in the fifth century.

The preaching of the word is also given the pride of place in a number of other Eastern ordination prayers. The first Georgian prayer, which parallels the second Melkite prayer, begins by linking the earthly ministry to the ministry of heaven, much as was also done in the prayer for a bishop in the Testamentum Domini, but mentions only the function of true teaching in its petition for the ordinand. The same is true of the third Melkite prayer: while it refers in a general way to the discharging of services (leitourgias) on behalf of the church and to beseeching God’s propitiation for all, the only function explicitly specified is the teaching of God’s commandments. The third prayer in the Georgian rite, which occurs in a somewhat longer and apparently later form in the East Syrian rite, asks God to send the Holy Spirit on the ordinand that he may have “the word of teaching, for the opening of his mouth,” before going on to mention the ministry of healing and the celebration of the Eucharist. The East Syrian version adds to this the administration of baptism. A similar list of functions also occurs in the fourth Melkite prayer—offering gifts and sacrifices, “utterance in the opening of his mouth,” praying for the sick, the administration of baptism, and care of the needy.⁴¹

Two of the Armenian prayers for a presbyter, like the first Georgian/second Melkite prayer, also begin with a comparison of the heavenly and earthly ministries. The first of these goes on to speak of priests as being “shepherds and leaders” of the congregation, images that elsewhere are used of the episcopal rather than presbyteral order, before specifying the functions of “the word of preaching,” the work of healing, the bestowal of the Spirit in baptism, and the celebration of the Eucharist. The second prayer merely asks for the bestowal of the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit so that the ordinand may teach and shepherd the people. The third Maronite prayer, which has some slight similarity to the first Georgian/second Melkite prayer, compares the heavenly and earthly ministries and refers to priestly, teaching, and governing/shepherding functions.⁴²

These prayers display both the same variation as to whether they use the typology of Stephen as was evidenced in the patristic prayers and also a similar tendency to reticence with regard to the actual functions of the diaconate. Where any details of the ministry are mentioned, they almost always relate to service at the altar rather than to any wider pastoral responsibility.

The first Byzantine prayer asks for the bestowal of the same grace that was given to Stephen, but has no explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit on the candidate. On the other hand, it does refer at the beginning to God in his foreknowledge sending down the Holy Spirit on those destined to be ministers: Is this perhaps a reflection of Acts 6:3 where the assembly are directed to choose men already “full of the Spirit” to be appointed to office? It gives little indication of the nature of the ministry for which the deacon is being ordained, except that it is related to the Eucharist. It speaks of “those destined…to serve at your immaculate mysteries,” and cites 1 Timothy 3:9, “holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience,” which some commentators have thought may be intended here, though not in its original context, as a reference to the deacon’s function of holding the chalice for the distribution of communion.⁴³ It ends with the quotation from 1 Timothy 3:13—“for those serving well will gain for themselves a good rank”—which we have already encountered in the deacon’s prayer in the Apostolic Tradition, and here again the reference is not to ecclesiastical preferment but to the deacon’s standing on the day of judgment.⁴⁴

The second prayer, like the second prayer for a bishop, is addressed to Christ rather than to God the Father, but this appears to be a secondary development, as a Syrian Orthodox version of it begins in a completely different manner. The Byzantine form does not use the typology of Stephen, but in its extended introduction links the diaconate to Christ, not claiming that he directly instituted it as the Euchologion of Sarapion tried to do, but interpreting his saying in Matthew 20:27 (“whoever wishes to be first among you must be your servant [doulos]”) as a prophetic word concerning it. The prayer then goes on to ask for the bestowal of appropriate gifts of the Holy Spirit, these being personal qualities rather than the powers to fulfill any specific function. It includes an insistent aside that ordination is indeed effected by the descent of the Spirit and not by the action of the bishop. This has the appearance of a later addition to the original text, though it is ancient enough to have also been included in the Syrian Orthodox version.⁴⁵ The inclusion of such a strongly defensive doctrinal statement in the prayer suggests that there was some controversy over the issue, and it may have been added in the late fourth century, since John Chrysostom makes a similar statement in one of his writings: “For this is ordination: the man’s hand is imposed, but God does all and it is his hand that touches the ordinand’s head when he is rightly ordained.”⁴⁶

The Syrian Orthodox version, also found in the Maronite rite, modifies the Byzantine prayer in several ways: it supplies an introduction that sets the ordination of the deacon within an ecclesial framework; it introduces a reference to Stephen, though without the designation “protomartyr”; and it expands the second half of the prayer with petitions for right judgment on the part of those responsible for choosing ordinands. Some of these petitions also occur in the preliminary prayer, “Lord God of hosts…,” used in all Syrian Orthodox ordinations from subdeacon upward.⁴⁷

The first ordination prayer for a deacon in the Georgian rite (here described as for an archdeacon) parallels the second prayer in the Melkite rite. It defines the diaconate neither in relation to Christ, who is only mentioned briefly toward the end of the prayer, nor by the typology of Stephen, but simply as one of a list of diverse ministries bestowed by God on the church—teachers, deacons, presbyters, and ministers. This is an unusual combination of offices: it omits any explicit reference to bishops and does not follow a hierarchical order, nor is it an allusion to any New Testament listing. The Melkite tradition seems to have found it difficult to comprehend, and has tried to make some sense out of it by arranging the titles in pairs, altering “presbyters” to “priests” in the process. The prayer has no explicit epiclesis, which may be a sign of its antiquity, but on the other hand, at least in its present form, it speaks of the ordinand’s ultimate promotion to a higher rank, which does not seem to belong to the earliest concept of the office.⁴⁸

The third Georgian prayer parallels the East Syrian ordination prayer, following the pattern of the rite for the presbyterate. This sets the creation of the diaconate in the context of the mission of Christ and of the apostles (the latter reference being expanded in the East Syrian prayer to prophets, apostles, priests, and teachers, apparently under the influence of Ephesians 4:11-12), and cites the example of Stephen and his companions. As in the first Georgian prayer, service at the altar is stated to be the principal function of the office, a point further strengthened in the East Syrian version by two additional references to the sacraments. There is, on the other hand, no mention of the ordinand’s eventual promotion to a higher rank but merely the petition for a favorable verdict on the Day of Judgment.⁴⁹

Of the remaining prayers of the Melkite rite, the first has the appearance of being a late composition, since extensive biblical quotation is not a characteristic of more ancient prayers, and it is very much built around Acts 6:5. However, as well as mentioning service of the altar, where it is the only prayer to refer explicitly to the diaconal function of giving communion to the people from the chalice, it also speaks of a ministry to widows and orphans—but has that been introduced simply because of the influence of Acts 6 rather than being a reflection of a genuine ministry of this kind? The position of the fourth prayer, after the bestowal of the symbols of office, suggests that it, too, is a late addition to the rite, even if it is not itself a late composition. It speaks simply of faithful service at the liturgy and of progress to a higher rank, though whether this is ecclesiastical or eschatological is not entirely clear.⁵⁰

The first of the two Armenian prayers for the diaconate, like two of those in the rite for the presbyterate, uses the comparison of the heavenly and earthly ministries. It goes on to set the diaconal office within an ecclesial context and then prays for the gift of appropriate personal qualities for the ordinand. Service at the altar is again designated as the principal function of the order, and the example of Stephen is invoked: he is here described not only as the first martyr and first deacon and minister of God’s worship but also as an apostle! There is no explicit epiclesis, though it prays that the ordinand “filled with the Holy Spirit, may stand fast…” and eventually be worthy of promotion to the priesthood. The second prayer is much shorter, and does contain a petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Once again, ministry at the holy table is described as the chief function of the office, and the remainder of the prayer seeks God’s protection for the new minister. Like the first Armenian prayer, those prayers in the Maronite rite which are without parallel in other traditions also employ the comparison of heavenly and earthly ministries.⁵¹

The only concluding symbolic ceremony mentioned in the Apostolic Tradition and its derivatives was the exchange of a kiss between the assembly and a new bishop, except for the Apostolic Constitutions, which included the seating of the new bishop and placed the kiss after that.⁵² It does not appear to be merely the kiss of peace that would normally occur within the eucharistic rite, for what evidence there is from the ante-Nicene period suggests that the latter formed the conclusion of the prayers of the faithful rather than the beginning of the eucharistic action.⁵³ The ordination kiss seems instead to have been intended to express the acceptance by the community of their new relationship with the one ordained.

No indication is given by any of the patristic sources as to whether a similar kiss was also exchanged in the case of the presbyterate and diaconate, with the sole exception of the Testamentum Domini, which directs that both “priests and people” are to give the kiss of peace to a newly ordained presbyter.⁵⁴ On the other hand, it is a consistent feature of later Eastern rites. Pseudo-Dionysius, for example, describes it as an element common to all the orders and interprets it as symbolizing “the sacred communion of like minds and their loving joy toward one another” (De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.2). By then, however, the ritual had apparently been clericalized: the kiss was given to the newly ordained minister by the bishop and all the clergy, and no reference is made to the laity’s involvement in the action.

Although no directions are given about the kiss in the ninth-century Armenian text, the closing prayer in each of the rites does make reference to its existence, and describes it as a welcome given by all. Later manuscripts of the rite for the presbyterate, however, while preserving the prayer in this form, direct that the salutation be done only by the bishop and the other priests.⁵⁵ In Byzantine practice there was a further development, and participation became restricted to those thought of as effecting the ordination: thus, only the bishops present kiss a newly ordained bishop, and only the presiding bishop kisses a new presbyter or deacon. No mention is made of a kiss in the case of a deaconess or subdeacon in this tradition, but it is recorded in the case of the reader, though here it is differently described, the word “peace” being used.⁵⁶ On the other hand, in other traditions the kiss is sometimes described as being given by the newly ordained deacon, presbyter, or bishop to the other ministers present.

The only other concluding ceremonial actions in the eighth-century Byzantine rite for a bishop are the bestowal of the omophorion, the Eastern equivalent of the Western pallium as a symbol of episcopal office, and his seating in the episcopal chair, the one coming before the kiss and the other after. In the Byzantine rite for a presbyter, the bishop similarly vests the newly ordained with the robes of his office, gives him the kiss, and seats him with his fellow presbyters. The same is true in the case of a deacon, except that instead of his being seated with fellow deacons, he is given the fan with which to perform his duty of fanning the eucharistic elements on the altar, and after receiving communion himself, he is given the chalice and assists in giving communion to the people.⁵⁷ Similar ceremonies conclude the other Eastern rites, and a number of the later texts—the Coptic, East Syrian, Maronite, Melkite, and Syrian Orthodox—include a solemn declaration that the candidate has been duly ordained to the particular order, as well as adding some unique features. Thus, the East Syrian rite includes the presentation of the book of the Epistles to a new deacon, the book of Gospels to a new presbyter, and the pastoral staff to a new bishop. In the Syrian Orthodox rite, both deacon and presbyter receive a thurible, and a bishop the pastoral staff. In the Maronite rite a new presbyter performs several actions that symbolize the liturgical duties of his office—incensing, and carrying the gospel book and then the paten in procession, and a new deacon reads a passage from the Epistles as well as incensing, carrying the Epistle book in procession, and waving the chalice veil. In the Melkite rite a presbyter is given the gospel book and reads John 1:1-3, and is then given the consecrated bread and proclaims the invitation to communion, “Holy things for holy people.” A deacon is likewise given the gospel book and reads the same passage before receiving the eucharistic vessels and the fan. The Byzantine rite itself also gives a distinctive function to the new presbyter in the eucharistic consecration that follows the ordination: he holds one of the pieces of bread in his hands throughout the prayer, bowing over the holy table. Like the Melkite custom, this is obviously intended to give symbolic expression to his new role as a participant in eucharistic presidency.⁵⁸

With the sole exception of the East Syrian tradition, which permits ordinations to take place at any time, Eastern rites consistently locate ordinations within a eucharistic celebration, although the Byzantine and Melkite traditions do allow the diaconate to be conferred during the Liturgy of the Presanctified instead, as the diaconal liturgical function can equally be exercised there. However, there are differences with regard to the precise point within the Eucharist at which the ordination is to take place. In the Byzantine rite the ordination of a bishop is located at the very beginning of the Eucharist, and the new bishop is then expected to read the Gospel, preach, and offer the oblation; a presbyter is ordained immediately after the entrance of the gifts, so that he may then fulfill his new liturgical role by participating in the eucharistic action, and a deacon at the end of the eucharistic prayer, so that he may then fulfill the diaconal function of assisting in the distribution of the consecrated elements to the communicants. The same is true of the Coptic rite, except that a deacon is ordained at the same point in the rite as the presbyter.

In the Maronite and Syrian Orthodox traditions, on the other hand, ordination to all the orders is deferred until the eucharistic consecration has been completed, in order that the consecrated bread and wine may be used in conjunction with the imposition of the hand (see above). However, in the case of the Maronite tradition, the oldest manuscripts suggest that the ordinations once came at an earlier point in the liturgy.⁵⁹ In the Syrian Orthodox rite a new bishop is directed to receive communion and then assume the presidency of the rite for the remainder of the celebration.

¹ For details of the available sources, see ORACEW, 5–14. The eighth-century Byzantine manuscript Barberini 336 is now available in a critical edition, L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336, ed. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska (Rome: CLV, 1995; 2nd ed., 2000).

² For a study of the Coptic rite for a patriarch, see Emmanuel Lanne, “Dans la tradition alexandrine l’ordination du patriarche,” in Ordination et Ministères: Conférences Saint Serge, XLIIe Semaine d’études liturgiques, ed. Achille Triacca and Alessandro Pistoia (Rome: CLV, 1996), 139–55.

³ Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica 9.10 (PG 65.576C).

⁴ ORACEW, 128–29.

⁵ British Museum Add. 19.548; in F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 237.

⁶ Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.3.5 (PG 3:512).

⁷ See John Chrysostom, Sermo cum presbyter fuit ordinatus 4 (PG 48:700); the reference to his ordination in Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5.27.1; and Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 4.1 and Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 15.35, both quoted above, pp. 56–57.

⁸ Heinrich Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, vol. 2 (Würzburg: Stahel, 1863 = Graz: Akademische Druk- und Verlagsanstalt, 1961), 361.

⁹ See ORACEW, 118.

¹⁰ It occurs in relation to the subdeacon in the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox rites, and both the reader and the subdeacon in the East Syrian and Melkite rites: see ORACEW, 141, 146–57, 176, 201–3.

¹¹ ORACEW, 133–36.

¹² Bernard Botte, “La formule d’ordination ‘La grâce divine’ dans les rites orientaux,” L’orient syrien 2 (1957), 285–96.

¹³ Pierre-Marie Gy, “Ancient Ordination Prayers,” SL 13 (1979): 75. See also Emmanuel Lanne, “Les ordinations dans le rite copte: leurs relations avec les Constitutions Apostoliques et la Tradition de saint Hippolyte,” L’orient syrien 5 (1960): 81–106, here at 82–83; Jean Tchékan, “Elements d’introduction à l’étude de la liturgie byzantine des ordinations,” Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice: Bulletin du Comité des Études 10 (1968): 190–208, here at 201.

¹⁴ L’Eucologio Constantinopolitano agli inizi del secolo XI, ed. Miguel Arranz (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1996), 142.

¹⁵ ORACEW, 149–50; 166–67.

¹⁶ Ibid., 133–35.

¹⁷ Ibid., 129, 131, 143, 145, 150, 158, 160, 163, 178, 181, 183, 191, 194, 197.

¹⁸ Ibid., 166, 206.

¹⁹ See above, pp. 69–71.

²⁰ Scholars had traditionally thought that in the Coptic rite it was limited to the consecration of the patriarch alone, but see Heinzgerd Brakmann, “Zur Evangeliar-Aufegung bei der Ordination koptischer Bischöfe,” in Eulogēma: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, SJ, ed. Ephrem Carr et al., Studia Anselmiana 110 (Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1993): 53–69, for a contrary view.

²¹ See below, p. 118.

²² See L’Eucologio Constantinopolitano, ed. Arranz, 143. Although these rites do not specify whether the open book faced up or down, later practice has been that it faces down.

²³ ORACEW, 133, 163, 183, 198.

²⁴ Ibid., 111.

²⁵ John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos et Gentiles 9 (PG 48:826); Homilia in Matthaeum 54 (PG 58:537).

²⁶ ORACEW, 128, 130, 133, 191, 194, 197, 206, 209.

²⁷ Ibid., 128, 130, 151, 163.

²⁸ See Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 236–37.

²⁹ ORACEW, 178, 181, 183, 191, 195, 197.

³⁰ Ibid., 128.

³¹ For reasons to think that the first prayer is a later composition than the second, see ibid., 51–52, 64–65.

³² See further Heinzgerd Brakmann, “Die altkirchlichen Ordinationsgebete Jerusalems,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 47 (2004): 108–27.

³³ See the table of relationships between the prayers in ORACEW, 243.

³⁴ ORACEW, 134. See the synopsis of the parallels in the prayers, ibid., 246–47, and further discussion of their origin, ibid., 50–55; also Frans van de Paverd, “Ein Gebet zur Bischofsweihe aus dem vorbyzantinischen Jerusalem,” in Eulogēma, ed. Carr, 511–23, who argues for a Jerusalem origin for the common core.

³⁵ The same is also true of the second prayer for a deacon. Gy, “Ancient Ordination Prayers,” 82, suggested that this was part of a general Byzantine tendency to direct to Christ those prayers that came to be said in a low voice.

³⁶ Pierre-Marie Gy, “La théologie des prières anciennes pour l’ordination des évěques et des prětres,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 58 (1974): 599–617, here at 604, considered that the description of God as unknowable at the beginning of the Byzantine version was characteristic of the theology of the Greek fathers at the end of the fourth century.

³⁷ See ORACEW, 64–65, 134, 181, 209.

³⁸ Ibid., 135.

³⁹ See also above, pp. 43 and 73, for John Chrysostom’s homily on the day of his presbyteral ordination, where he said that he had been placed among the priests and that the word was his sacrifice, and for the use of the noun hierourgias, “holy services,” to denote presbyteral functions in the ordination prayer for presbyters in Apostolic Constitutions.

⁴⁰ See Apostolic Constitutions 2.57.9, and the evidence of John Chrysostom cited in Frans van de Paverd, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Constantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 187 (Rome: Pontificale Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1970), 131. According to the Itinerarium Egeriae (25.1; 26.1; 27.6–7; 42.1; 43.2, 3), the same seems to have been true at Jerusalem.

⁴¹ See ORACEW, 160–61,170–71, 210–12.

⁴² Ibid., 130–32, 195.

⁴³ See, for example, Martimort, Deaconesses, 156.

⁴⁴ ORACEW, 136.

⁴⁵ But there strangely in the plural—“the imposition of the hands of us sinners.” The same phrase also occurs in one of the Maronite ordination prayers.

⁴⁶ John Chrysostom, Homilia in Acta Apostolorum 14.3 (PG 60:116). He also implies in one of his baptismal homilies that the Antiochene baptismal formula was changed from the active to the passive form at this time in order to make a similar point.

⁴⁷ ORACEW, 178–79.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 169, 207.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 158—59, 170.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 206–8.

⁵¹ Ibid., 128–29, 192–93.

⁵² Ibid., 108, 110, 114, 119.

⁵³ See Justin Martyr, Apology 1.65.2; Tertullian, De oratione 18; Michael Philip Penn, Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005).

⁵⁴ ORACEW, 119.

⁵⁵ See Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 242.

⁵⁶ ORACEW, 134, 136–37, 139.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 134, 136–37.

⁵⁸ For later developments of this ceremony, see Tchékan, “Elements d’introduction à l’étude de la liturgie byzantine des ordinations,” 204–5.

⁵⁹ See P. E. Gemayel, Avant-messe maronite: histoire et structure, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 174 (Rome: Pontificale Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1965), 125–33.

Chapter 5

Ordination Rites in the Churches of the East