Jan 26, 2025

Chorepiscopi in the Early Church and Presbyteral Ordination

 

In the early church, a lesser known ecclesiastical office was in use from the 3rd century through the end of the 9th century. 

“Chorepiscopi, that is, the Vicars of Bishops, as the Canons themselves attest, were instituted in the likeness of the 70 Elders, as priests due to the concern for the poor. These, being established in towns and villages, govern the Churches entrusted to them, having the permission to appoint Readers, Subdeacons, and Exorcists. However, they should not dare to ordain Presbyters and Deacons without the knowledge of the Bishop under whose jurisdiction they are known to preside. These Chorepiscopi are ordained solely by the Bishop of the city to which they are adjacent.” (Isidore of Seville, De Officiis Ecclesiasticis, ch. 6)

“It is sufficiently found that they are the same as presbyters because they were first instituted after the form and example of the seventy.” (Pope Damasus, Epistola III, PL 13:432B)

“The chorepiscopi, however, are indeed after the pattern of the Seventy; and as fellow-servants, on account of their devotion to the poor, they have the honour of making the oblation.” (Council of Neocaesarea [AD 315], Canon 14)

“It is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons, and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish." (Council of Ancyra [AD 314], Canon 13)

“The Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received ordination to the Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these, but shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress [these] decrees, he shall be deposed from the rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the city to which he is subject.” (Council of Antioch [AD 341], Canon 10)

The dispute and objection raised by the stronger advocates of episcopacy is that these chorepiscopoi were not in the order of priests, but rather equivalent to a type of “suffragan bishop”, sometimes also called “village bishops”, that had received episcopal orders. In response to this, we see a few ancient testimonies where chorepiscopoi are likened unto and/or placed under the category of presbyters and recognized as having some power in the question of ordination:

“And before all things I entreat you, holy and God-loved brother, render assistance to my prayers. These things I have brought to your Holiness' knowledge, by the most religious and God-beloved presbyters, Hypatius and Abramius the chorepiscopi, and Alypius, superintendent of the monks in our district.” (Pope Leo the Great, Letter 52, “To Theodoret of Cyrus”)

Whilst admonishing a group of chorepiscopoi for not closely adhering to the church canons in their discipline, St. Basil the Great wrote “According to the ancient custom observed in the Churches of God, ministers in the Church were received after careful examination;….This examination was made by presbyters and deacons living with them.  Then they brought them to the Chorepiscopi; and the Chorepiscopi, after receiving the suffrages of the witnesses as to the truth and giving information to the Bishop, so admitted the minister to the sacerdotal order. Now, however, you have quite passed me over; you have not even had the grace to refer to me, and have transferred the whole authority to yourselves.  Furthermore, with complete indifference, you have allowed presbyters and deacons to introduce unworthy persons into the Church, just any one they choose, without any previous examination of life and character, by mere favoritism, on the score of relationship or some other tie.” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 54, “To the Chorepiscopoi”)

When the powers of chorepiscopi were weakened in the medieval period, the justification given for these decisions was that they were presbyters. Pope Leo III declared their ordinations to be null and void. Medieval synods took a similar approach: "Basilicas consecrated by Chorepiscopi must be reconsecrated by Bishops, as reinforced by the decrees of Popes Damasus, Innocent, and Leo, declaring that all acts performed in the supreme priestly ministry by Chorepiscopi are void and ineffective, as they are the same as Presbyters." (Council of Metz [AD 889], Canon 10)


In his renowned treatise Presbytery & not Prelacy the Scriptural and Primitive Polity (1844), Thomas Smyth cites the following letter from the Council of Nicaea to the church of Alexandria regarding the Meletian schism:

“It was decreed, the Synod being moved to great clemency towards Melitius, although strictly speaking he was wholly undeserving of favor, that he remain in his own city but exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he appear in no other district or city on this pretense, but simply retain a nominal dignity. That those who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who have been ordained and established in each place and church by our most-honored fellow-minister, Alexander, so that they shall have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of some bishop of the Catholic Church who is one of Alexander's suffragans. On the other hand, such as by the grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the Catholic Church blameless, shall have authority to nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to ecclesiastical law and usage.” (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, ch. 9)

With regard to those who had been appointed by Meletus, this letter tells us that they did not have permission to nominate without the concurrence of a bishop. Thus, this group was distinct from the episcopate. And yet, for the orthodox and non schismatic members of this same group and ministerial rank (presumably), they “shall have authority to nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office.” I personally think that this letter teaches presbyteral ordination implicitly at best, and I would not put it forth as my strongest historical argument in its favor. 

The Dominican ecclesiastical historian Noël Alexandre (1639-1724) argues that chorepiscopi were mostly presbyters, though not necessarily conceding the absolute power of ordination to them, but could perhaps ordain with episcopal permission. He also believed that there were some chorepiscopi who received episcopal consecration.

[1]. Conciliar canons forbid bishops being established in rural village areas (Council of Laodicea, Canon 57; Council of Sardica, Canon 6). But Chorepiscopoi were appointed in rural village areas. Therefore, they were not bishops.

[2]. Concerning the ordinations performed by the chorepiscopi, Pope Nicholas I wrote, "You report that many ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons have been performed by Chorepiscopi in your regions, and some Bishops depose them, while others reconsecrate them. We declare that neither the innocent should be harmed nor reordinations or repeated consecrations performed. Chorepiscopi were established in the model of the seventy disciples—who doubts that they held episcopal offices? Yet sacred canons forbid all to arrogate to themselves all things, lest the dignity of Bishops be transferred to their Chorepiscopi and the honor of Bishops be diminished. Therefore, we decree that nothing contrary to the rules should be done." (Pope Nicholas I, Epistle to Rudolph, Archbishop of Bourges, AD 864)

Is Pope Nicholas here saying that chorepiscopi were true bishops? Noel Alexandre explained it by appealing to his distinction (similar to that of Bellarmine) of distinct kinds of chorepiscopi, some bishops, and some priests - “It is clear that he does not speak of all Chorepiscopi, as he compares them to the seventy disciples: "Chorepiscopi were established in the model of the seventy disciples—who doubts that they held episcopal offices?" But it is evident that not all the seventy disciples were Bishops; some were Priests of the second rank, and some were merely Deacons. Therefore, the words of Nicholas I must be understood as referring to certain Chorepiscopi, not collectively to all.” (Noel Alexandre, Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum Trias [Paris: John Du Puis, 1682], pg. 182) 


No comments:

Papal Approval of Presbyteral Ordination

Lawrence Crumb has written an excellent paper titled " Presbyteral Ordination and the See of Rome ", in which he provides a good h...