Gibaut - Amalarius of Metz and the Laying on of Hands

HTR 82:2 (1989) 233-40

Amalarius of Metz and the Laying on of Hands in the Ordination of a Deacon

Amalarius of Metz (ca. 780-850/851), the premier liturgical scholar of the Carolingian Renaissance, is often cited as a witness to the liturgical usages of the Frankish church in the ninth century. Amalarius's descriptions, critiques, and explanations of the various rites in works such as the Liber officialis appear to many scholars as contrived and visionary. Despite his value as a source for liturgical history, Amalarius's reliability has long been under question. In 1897 noted liturgist and historian Edmund Bishop wrote:

Amalar, high priest of symbolism, and a favourite crony, characteristically enough, of the not too clear sighted emperor Louis the Pious, is a source of information at once provoking and precious. No one is more full of information as to the common or special practices in the Western Church in the Carolingian age, but by his excessive love of antiquarianism, his exaggerated craze for symbolism, and the indifferent character of the written documents on which he sometimes relies, he is as likely to mislead in regard to current practice as he is to inform.'

The validity of such a judgment can only be assessed on a case by case examination of Amalarius's works. As a case in point, I shall examine Amalarius's treatment of ordination to the diaconate, and in particular, the question of who imposes hands on the deacon. In Book II of the Liber officialis he writes:

XII-De diaconis 8. Now let us examine the consecration [of the deacon]. It is written in the aforementioned Acts of the Apostles: "And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip," and a little later, "These they set before the apostles, and praying they laid their hands upon them." 9. There is a certain little book [known] among us, whose author I do not know, concerning sacred orders, which says that only the bishop is to impose hands on the deacon,

'Edmund Bishop, "The Origins of the Cope as a Church Vestment," Dublin Review 120 (1897) 17-33; cited in Gerald Ellard, Ordination Anointings in the Western Church before 1000 A.D. (Cambridge: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1933) 43.

This content downloaded from 200.82.114.158 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:44:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

"because he is not consecrated to the priesthood but to service." Is the writer of this little book more learned and more holy than the apostles, who placed many hands on the deacons when they were consecrated? And on that account, when the bishop alone lays hands on the deacon, is he alone able to pray for the virtue of grace more than the many apostles prayed? 10. Or perhaps, therefore, the priest does not lay hands on him who is consecrated to the office of deacon, lest he make him what he is himself, that is, a priest? If this is the case, then neither is it fitting for the bishop to lay hands on him, lest he make him a bishop! But if for that reason it is fitting for the bishop to lay hands on him, because he prays for him, he prays not alone, but with all who dutifully uphold the words of the bishop and his intention. The example for the bishops is the company of the apostles. It is best to follow good leaders, who have struggled to final victory.2

The "certain little book" (libellus quidam) which Amalarius criticizes is the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua (SEA) of the late fifth century. Few documents have had as much influence on the development of ceremonial in Western ordination liturgies as the SEA. Its usages are reflected in the Gelasian sacramentaries, the Ordines, and the Pontificale Romanum. Although its probable author, Genna- dius of Marseilles, would likely have been unknown to Amalarius, the SEA itself was well known to him, and he refers to it elsewhere in the Liber officialis.

Amalarius questions the practice set forth in the SEA which directs the bishop alone to impose hands on the deacon. Canon 92 of the SEA states:

Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.3

28. Audiamus nunc consecrationem. Scriptum est in libro memorato Actus apostolorum: "Et placuit sermo coram omni multitudine; et elegerunt Stephanum, virum plenum fide et spiritu sancto, et Philippum"; et paulo post, "Hos statuerunt ante conspectum apostolorum et orantes inposuerunt eis manus." 9. Est libellus quidam apud nos de sacris ordinibus, nescio cuius auctoris, qui dicit solum episcopum debere manus imponere super diaconum, "quia non ad sacerdotium consecratur, sed ad ministerium." Numquid scriptor libelli doctior atque sanctior apostolis, qui posuerunt plures manus super diaconos, quando consecrabantur, et propterea solus episcopus ponat manum super diaconum, ac si solus possit precari virtutem gratiarum, quam plures apostoli precabantur? 10. An forte ideo non imponit sacerdos manum super eum qui ad diaconatus officium consecratur, ut non fiat quod ipse est, id est sacerdos? Si ita est, nec episcopum oportet ei manum imponere, ut non fiat episcopus. Quod si propterea oportet ei episcopum manum imponere, quia ipse orat pro eo, non solus ille orat, sed omnes qui pie intendunt verbis episcopi ac mente retinent. Imitatio episcoporum apostolorum chorus est. Optimum est bonos duces sequi, qui certaverunt usque ad plenam vic- toriam. (Amalarius of Metz, Liber officialis, 2.11; ed. J. Hanssens, Amalarii episcopi Opera litur- gica omnia, vol. 2: Liber officialis [Studi e Testi 139; Vatican: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948] 224).

3Charles Munier, ed., Les Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960) 96.

234



NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS

Does Amalarius's criticism of the well established practice reveal an "excessive love of antiquarianism" or an "exaggerated craze for symbolism" as Edmund Bishop would have us believe? Or are his remarks, perhaps, a witness to an alternate and discrepant usage in the Frankish church, one in which presbyters as well as the bishop imposed hands on the deacon?

Many Roman and Frankish liturgical books in the eighth and ninth centuries contained extracts from the ordination rites of the SEA. The canons dealing with the ordination rites of the SEA were normally separated from one another and placed as rubrics before the ordination prayers in sacramentaries and pontificals. The ordination of a deacon was no exception. For instance, the Gelasian sacramentaries of the eighth century, such as the Sacramentary of Gellone (Paris, B.N., MS lat. 12048, ca. 790-800), the Phillipp's Sacramentary of Autun (Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, MS lat. 105; ca. 800), and the ordination rites in the Freiburger Pontifical (Freiburg, UB 365; Basel, mid-ninth century), faithfully reproduce Canon 92 of the SEA as an introduction to the ordination of a deacon:

Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, quia non ad sacerdotium, sed ad ministerium ordinatur.4

There are, however some MSS of the Gelasian sacramentary which witness to an alternative practice. The "Old" Gelasian sacramentary (Vatican, BAV, Reg. lat. 316; Chelles, ca. 750) contains the ordination canons of the SEA in a unified body before the ordination material. The canonical text is faithfully reproduced, with one notable exception. The canon dealing with the ordination of a deacon has been altered to read as follows:

Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus episcopus qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat; reliqui vero sacerdotes iuxta manum episcopo caput illius ponant, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.5

The same interpolation is found in another eighth-century Gelasian sacramentary, the Sacramentary of Angouleme (Paris, B.N., MS lat. 816; Angouleme, ca. 800), nearly a generation later. In this MS the canons of the SEA serve as intro-

4E.g., see A. Dumas, ed., Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis (CCSL 159; Tumhout: Brepols, 1981) 386; 0. Heiming, ed., Liber Sacramentorum Augustodunensis (CCSL 159b; Tumhout: Brepols, 1984) 184; and Max Josef Metzgeer, ed., "Zwei karolingische Pontifikalien vom Ober- rhein," Freiburger Theologische Studien 17 (1914) 10*.

5Leo Cunibert Mohlberg, ed., Liber sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae ordinis anni circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 316; Paris, B.N. 7193, 41/56 [Sacramentarium Gelasianum]; Rome: Herder, 1981) 116.

235




ductions to the various ordination prayers. The revised rubric again directs "priests" to impose hands on the deacon with the bishop:

Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus episcopus qui eum benedicit manum super caput illius ponat, reliqui vero sacerdotes iuxta manum episcopi caput illius tangant, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.6

Theologically, the interpolation reliqui vero sacerdotes iuxta manum episcopi caput illius tangantlponant seems to confuse and contradict both what it follows and precedes. In terms of the ceremonial action, though, the intent of the interpolation is clear: the bishop is joined in imposing hands over the deacon by the other "priests," presumably presbyters. In this instance, Amalarius's disagreement with the rubrics of the SEA is not misleading "in regard to current practice," as one might suspect from Bishop's judgment. Rather, his remarks on the ordination of a deacon in the Liber officialis attest to two different liturgical practices in the church of his day: one in which the bishop alone laid hands on the deacon, and the other in which bishops and presbyters laid hands on the deacon.

It is likely that the usage which Amalarius advocated was not limited to the Frankish church in this period, but was found in other parts of Europe. A con- temporary MS from southern Italy offers an interesting witness. The MS of the so-called Collectio Theatina (Vatican Reg. lat. 1997; Chieti, early to mid-ninth century) contains a canon law collection clearly based on a Metz exemplar of the late eighth century. In the appended ordination rites, the SEA is reproduced for every order from doorkeeper to presbyter, with one exception, the deacon. There are no directions from the SEA or any other source. In the MS there is no lacuna between the final prayer in the ordination of a subdeacon and the Ad ordinandum diaconum. Nor is there any evidence of material having been excised or altered.7 The redactor of this MS curiously omitted any directions as to who was to have laid hands on the deacon. The same omission is witnessed in a tenth-century MS from Chieti (Vatican BAV, Vat. lat. 7701, fol. 4r; Chieti, tenth century).8 These significant omissions implicitly suggest that the alternative usages noted by Amalarius could also be found in Italy. These omissions

6Patrick Saint-Roch, ed., Liber Sacramentorum Engolismensis (CCSL 159c; Turnhout: Brepols, 1987) 318.

7Vatican BAV lat. 1997, folio 157v; on the MS see Paola Supino Martini, "Per lo studio delle scritture altomedievali italiane: la collezione canonica chietina (Vat. Reg. lat. 1997)," Scrittura e Civiltd 1 (1977) 133-54. On the Metz exemplar see Hubert Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform in Frankenreich. Die Collectio Vetus Gallica, die alteste systematische Kanonessammlung des frdnkischen Gallien. Studien und Edition (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1975) 11.

8Cited by Roger E. Reynolds in "A Southern Italian Ordination Allocution," Mediaeval Studies 47 (1985) 438 n. 1.

236




could well indicate the existence of some debate that the redactors wanted to avoid.

The practice of bishops as well as presbyters laying hands on the deacon must have been short-lived. Most Gelasian MSS from the eighth century and after remain faithful to the rubrics and ceremonial of the SEA, as do the Ordines and subsequent medieval sources.

In the Liber officialis Amalarius disagrees with the practice of the SEA. In terms of Edmund Bishop's judgment I shall consider whether Amalarius's sup- port of the alternative practice is the result of "his excessive love of antiquarianism" and an "exaggerated craze for symbolism" or something else.

A product of southern Gaul in the late fifth century (ca. 470), the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua is a composite work. The ordination rites show clear depen- dence on the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (Rome, ca. 215). Dom Botte writes: "I1 a comme base un ecrit romain qui derive de la Tradition d'Hippolyte, sinon la Tradition elle-meme."9 Canon 92 of the SEA is a case in point. Concerning the ordination of a deacon the Apostolic Tradition (AT) states:

In the ordination of a deacon, the bishop alone shall lay hands, because he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do what is ordered by him.'0

There is a certain logic here. The deacon receives the laying on of hands from the bishop alone, because he will serve the bishop alone. The Hippolytan text is reproduced as Canon 92 in the SEA with a subtle and significant change:

Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur. 1

By the end of the fifth century the words "to the service of the bishop" (ad ministerium episcopi) of the AT had been reduced simply to "service" (ad ministerium) in Canon 92 of the SEA.

The alteration of the Hippolytan text reflects two related trends emerging in the post-Nicene Church: the rise of the presbyterate and the theological and pol- itical decline of the diaconate.12 In the AT the presbyterate is implicitly sacerdotal because of its association with the sacerdotal office of the episcopate. By the

9Dom Bernard Botte, "Le rituel d'ordination des Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua," Recherches de Theologie ancienne et medievale 11 (1939) 240.

'0G. Cuming, ed. and trans., Hippolytus: A Textfor Students (Bramcote, Notts.: Grove, 1984) 13. Munier, ed., Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, 96.

12See Roger E. Reynolds, "An Early Medieval Tract on the Diaconate," HTR 72 (1979) 97.

237




late patristic period the presbyterate was a sacerdotal office in its own right, often equated with the episcopate. In the late fourth century Jerome could write to Evangelus the Presbyter:

Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non facit.... Unde ad Timotheum et ad Titum de ordinatione episcopi et diaconis dicitur, de presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in episcopo et presbyter continetur.13

Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) reflects the same trend in De ecclesiasticis officiis, Book 2, in stressing the sacerdotal quality of both the presbyterate and the episcopate:

Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit (ut dictum est) a filiis Aaron. Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in Veteri Testamento, hi sunt qui nunc appel- lantur presbyteri, et qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum, nunc episcopi nominantur.... His enim, sicut episcopis, dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est.14

Similar examples of "patristic presbyterianism" are also found in the works of Ambrosiaster, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pelagius, and the Ps.-Hieronymian De septem ordinibus ecclesiae.15

The elevation of the presbyterate was often at the expense of the diaconate. Jerome, for instance, emphasized the dignity of the presbyterate and its close relationship to the episcopate in order to combat the powerful deacons of the Roman Church. The theological decline of the diaconate was also the result of new developments in the Church's understanding of both the presbyterate and the episcopate.

Before the third century neither the episcopate nor the presbyterate was con- sidered "sacerdotal." In the AT of Hippolytus "priesthood" was one of the categories used to define the bishop's ministry, and by implication, the presbyter's as well. By the time of Cyprian in the mid-third century, "priesthood" had become the primary category for understanding the ministry of both bishops and presbyters. Cyprian was able to use the terms sacerdos and episcopus synonymously.16 Later, sacerdos and presbyter would become inter- changeable. The emphasis on the sacerdotal definition of the episcopate and presbyterate affected the diaconate and the minor orders as well. As the presbyter became more associated with the Levitical "priest" of the Old Testament,

13I. Hillberg, ed., Epistula CXLVI, 1-2 (CSEL 56; 1918) 310-11. '4PL 83. 787. 15See Roger E. Reynolds, "Patristic 'Presbyterianism' in the Early Medieval Theology of Sacred

Orders," Mediaeval Studies 45 (1983) 266. 16See Epistle LXVII, 1 and 2, Cypriani Opera omnia (CSEL) III. 1.

238




so the deacon became associated with the "Levite," his liturgical assistant and subordinate. Whereas the deacon had at one time been the servant solely of the bishop, by the time of the SEA he was the servant of the presbyter as well. The "Levite" was the assistant of the "priest," whether bishop or presbyter.17

When the redactor of the SEA drafted Canon 92 regarding the ordination of the deacon, his omission of episcopi from the phrase ad ministerium episcopi was an accurate reflection of the developments which had taken place in the church's understanding and practice of ministry since the time of Hippolytus. The alteration of the Hippolytan text corresponded to the altered relationships between the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The redactor of the SEA could have indicated this in Canon 92 by adding the word presbyterorumque (i.e., ad ministerium episcopi presbyterorumque), though the omission of the word episcopi would have achieved the same end with much more simplicity and subtlety.

The disciplinary canons of the SEA are bolder in their presentation of the new situation. For example, Canon 57 states: "Diaconus ita se presbyteri ut episcopi ministrum noverit."18 Canon 59 is indicative of the relationship between the presbyterate and the diaconate: "Ut diaconus quolibet loco iubente presbytero, sedeat.'"19

Nevertheless, the ordination rites in the SEA and those liturgical texts which included the SEA remained the same, that is, the bishop alone imposed hands on the deacon. In this instance lex orandi had not caught up with lex credendi. There were exceptions, as I have noted in the witness of Amalarius, the Old Gelasian Sacramentary, and the Sacramentary of Angouleme (as well as the silence on the whole question from the Collectio Theatina). These sources suggest that in some places in the eighth and ninth centuries there was a rite which directed the presbyters to join with the bishop for the imposition of hands at the ordination of a deacon.

Admittedly, while the sense of the revised Canon 92 as it appears in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary and the Sacramentary of Angouleme is confusing and contradictory theologically, the ceremonial action of the interpolation reliqui vero sacerdotes iuxta manum episcopi caput illius ponant is clear. It represents the next step in the process which began when the redactor of the SEA omitted episcopi from ad ministerium episcopi in the AT. The redactors of the SEA and the Old Gelasian have retained the received tradition from the AT within their respective times and communities, while rewording the text to reflect the shifts

17See Daniel Donovan, The Levitical Priesthood and the Ministry of the New Testament (Diss. Muinster, 1970).

'8Munier, ed., Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, 89. '9Ibid., 90.

239




which had taken place over time in the relationships between the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.

One might argue that the canon dealing with the ordination of a deacon in the SEA does not go far enough because it does not fully express the changed relationship between the presbyterate and the diaconate, a change which is expressed elsewhere in the canons. Moreover, the Frankish interpolation is arguably more faithful to the spirit of the AT, if not to the letter. The AT directs the bishop to impose hands on the deacon because the deacon is ordained to his service. Once the diaconate is the servant of the presbyter as well, it seems not unreasonable to include the presbyters in the imposition of hands. This does not imply that the presbyters "ordain" the deacon, any more than they "ordain" a fellow presbyter when they lay hands with the bishop in the ordination of a presbyter. The revised canon still maintains that the bishop is the one qui eum benedicit.

The joint imposition of hands found in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary and the Sacramentary of Angouleme is consistent with Amalarius's own understanding of orders. In the Liber officialis he argues that the only orders which are the sine qua non of the church are the "priesthood" and the diaconate:

Primo notandum est eos ordines qui potissimum necessarii sunt in ecclesia apostolum Paulum denominasse et eorum mores depinxisse, sine quibus non potest rite immolatio altaris celebrari, scilicet sine sacerdotes et diacono.20

Given this understanding of the relationship between the diaconate and the "priesthood" (of either bishops or presbyters), the interpolation directing "priests" to impose hands on the deacon must have made a great deal of sense to those who participated in this somewhat isolated and short-lived rite.21

What is surprising is not Amalarius's disagreement with the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, but that the practice of bishops and presbyters laying hands would have needed to be defended at all. In this instance, it is not Amalarius of Metz who is the "antiquarian" of Edmund Bishop's judgment, but his ninth-century opponents on the question of who imposes hands in the ordination of a deacon.

John Gibaut Trinity College, Toronto

20Hanssens, ed., Liber officialis, 213. 21For an illustration reflecting the non-Amalarian rite of the ordination of a deacon, see the ivory

cover of the Sacramentary of Drogo of Metz, reproduced in Roger E. Reynolds, "Image and Text: The Liturgy of Clerical Ordination in Early Medieval Art," Gesta 22 (1983) 29, fig. 3.

240



Gibaut - Amalarius of Metz and the Laying on of Hands

Documents

Transcript of Gibaut - Amalarius of Metz and the Laying on of Hands