Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
a. First Authority and the Weighing of It
29. The first of these is in the chapter ‘Once’ (the second in the following chapter [n.37]), and it is titled ‘Jerome, On the Epistle to Titus [1.5]’: “Once,” he says, “the priest was the same as he who was bishop: they [sc. the faithful] were ruled by the common council of the priests of the Church until, by a diabolical instinct, passions arose and it was said in their meals [I Corinthians 1.12, cf. also 1.11, 31; 3.3; 5.8], ‘I am of Paul, and I of Apollos’. But after each thought those whom he was baptizing to be his own and not
Christ’s, a decree in the whole world was made so that one of the priests might be set up as superior and the seeds of schisms be taken away.” And a little later, “Just as the priests know that they are, by the custom of the Church, subjected to him who has been set up over them, so let the bishops know that more by custom than by the truth of our Lord’s dispensation are they greater than the priests, and that they must rule the Church in common.”
30. Again, Jerome, To the Priest Evangelius [Epistle 46 n.1], and it is in Decretum “We have read” [Gratian, p.1 d.93 ch.24], “Since the Apostle clearly teaches that the bishops are the same as those who are priests,” which he proves there by many authorities. And below, “At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist up to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the priests used always to choose one from among themselves and place him at a higher rank, whom they called bishop [literally = ‘overseer’], in the way an army may, if it do, appoint a general, and the deacons may choose from themselves one whom they know to be industrious and title him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do that, apart from ordination, a priest does not do?” The response of the Gloss there [Gloss on Decretum, p.1 d.93 ch.24]: “In ‘ordination’ are understood the other things that are not done save by bishops.” But this is explained as “not done licitly.” For that these things may absolutely be done [sc. by priests] is proved by the preceding gloss, where there is disputation about that in which the preferment is made to be, whether in office or in name; and at the end the gloss says, “the preferment is made as to administration and certain sacraments that are now appropriated to bishops.”
31. From this a twofold argument is made:
First thus: if such a preferment of bishops over priests was made after the Apostles, then it was not so from the beginning of the Church.
32. Again [second], if now these things [n.30] are made proper to someone, then they were before not proper from the beginning.
33. I reply: if from the beginning there was some act proper to a bishop (as Jerome says: what can a bishop do that, besides consecration, a priest cannot do?; the gloss understands the other things through ‘consecration’ [n.30]), it follows that there was from the beginning a difference between bishops and priests. And then the authorities do not prove the opposite but are to be explained as the Gloss does [ibid. n.30], namely that perhaps “the names were synonymous and the administration (that is the governance of the Church) was common.”
34. But not, however, was all dispensing of the sacraments common. This is proved in Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.21 ch.2, “In place of the Apostles bishops arose;” but “the priests bore the pattern of the seventy-two disciples” [Luke 10.1-24]. Therefore, the distinction between bishop and simple priest was made by Christ.
35. To the contrary:
Was not Philip, and Stephen and the others of the seventy-two disciples, deacons and not priests?
36. Again: “I left you in Crete” for this, that you might ordain “priests” [Titus 1.5]; so a non-bishop could not do this.64