Deacon before Priest?(Canon Law question)

[GoLatin]

Hi, I hope that this doesn’t sound like a stupid question.

I assume that in all Catholic Rites, a man planning to be ordained a Priest must be ordained a Deacon first.

But I am wondering:

Let’s say, that for some reason, a man does not go through the Ordination to the Diaconate. The Bishop just does the Priestly Ordination, and the man is not ordained Deacon beforehand.

If such an ordination happened, would the man be a “real Priest”?

If the hypothetical man in question is not considered to be a “real Priest”, then must he be ordained a Deacon, and then go through the Priestly Ordination ceremony all over again?

Thank you! May God

 

[SMHW]

For clarification, are you suggesting a case where the bishop does not realize this man has not previously been ordained a deacon?

 

[GoLatin]

SMHW:

For clarification, are you suggesting a case where the bishop does not realize this man has not previously been ordained a deacon?

Yes, either that or for some reason the Bishop “ordains” the man a Priest while knowing full well that he is not a Deacon.

My original post is a hypothetical question. I am not personally aware of any such incident happening in real life.

 

[GoLatin]

Does anybody have any insights on this?

Has cameronlansing seen this?

 

[RobNY]

It is the opinion of Fr. Hardon that,

The sacrament that, by the imposition of a bishop’s hands, confers on a man the grace and spiritual power to sanctify others. There are three forms of this sacrament, also called sacramental orders, namely diaconate, priesthood and episcopate. They are not, however, three sacraments, but only one sacrament that is separately administered with three successively higher sacramental effects. It is certain that every baptized male can be validly ordained, although it would be highly illicit to ordain him before the age of reason. It is likewise certain that every baptized male can be validly ordained a priest without previously being ordained a deacon. However, the more probable teaching is that a baptized male cannot be validly consecrated a bishop unless he has previously been ordained a priest.

 

[RobNY]

This seems to clash with the very next paragraph, but I think it’s just an apparent clash, let me explain:

PRIESTHOOD. Sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, which confers on a man the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of Christ, and of remitting and retaining sins. There are two grades or levels of the priesthood, the presbyterate and the episcopate. Normally priesthood refers to the presbyterate and is the second rank of orders, above the diaconate. Only a bishop can ordain priests, who must first have been ordained deacons. In the ordination of priests, the “matter” of the sacrament is the imposition of the bishop’s hands upon the individual candidates, which is done in silence before the consecration prayer, of which the following words pertain to the nature of the order and therefore are required for the validity of the act: “We ask you, all powerful Father, give these servants of yours the dignity of the presbyterate. Renew the Spirit of holiness within them. By your divine gift may they attain the second order of the hierarchy and exemplify right conduct in their lives.”

This seems like an apparent contradiction from Fr. Hardon, but it’s just talking about whether the act is licit, not valid. The first paragraph affirms that the consecration of an unordained main to the priesthood is certainly valid, but in the context of our ecclesiastical laws it would likely be illicit (I’m reading into that) because, bishops can ordain priests, ‘who must first have been ordained deacons,’ i.e., as a matter of law, not validity.

Does this all make sense?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Canonically a many must be ordained to the diaconate for at least six months before he is ordained to the priesthood (canon 1031.1) Since this is a canonical restriction a man ordained to the priesthood without first being ordained to the deaconate would, I believe, be validly ordained, but such ordination would be illicit. If, however, one follows the understanding of Aquinas then the failure to be ordained to the diaconate would preclude the possiblity of being ordained to the priesthood.

There is, in Rome, a discussion about not requiring the diaconate before the priestly ordination on the grounds that they are two different vocations. I don’t know where that will go…

Deacon Ed

 

[RobNY]

Deacon Ed:

If, however, one follows the understanding of Aquinas then the failure to be ordained to the diaconate would preclude the possiblity of being ordained to the priesthood.

I don’t follow you Deacon Ed. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by ‘the understanding of Aquinas.’ I suppose it has to do with something Aquinas wrote about the diaconate being a necessary step before the priesthood? Then again, I’d better not suppose.

 

[davidc2]

I’m afraid I don’t have any references for this, but I do have a relevant story. I knew a priest (he presided at a friend’s wedding) who researched this issue extensively because of a flaw that occured during his deaconal ordination. Its been several years ago, so I don’t even recall what the flaw was for sure, something about a prayer was said at the wrong time, and then not repeated at the proper time.

Any way, it was enough of an issue that those that were ordained deacons at that ceremony did some quiet but extensive research to see if it would effect their validity when it came to the priestly ordination. The conclusion was that it would not. Thus that class of deacons was happily, and properly, ordained priests the following year and didn’t have to worry about it anymore

 

[Deacon_Ed]

RobNY:

I don’t follow you Deacon Ed. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by ‘the understanding of Aquinas.’ I suppose it has to do with something Aquinas wrote about the diaconate being a necessary step before the priesthood? Then again, I’d better not suppose.

Aquinas writes that the fullness of potency of Holy Orders is received at ordination to the diaconate, and that each subsequent ordination releases the “power” appropriate to that order. Thus, if one is not ordained a deacon one does not have the power that is later released. This is the underlying theology behind the thinking of the Church in continuing the sequence of deacon, priest, bishop and not starting with priest.

Deacon Ed

 

[mosher]

Keeping in tandum the canonical restriction and the restriction given from theology by Thomas how then can there be provision for emergency ordination to the priesthood via grave necessity?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

mosher:

Keeping in tandum the canonical restriction and the restriction given from theology by Thomas how then can there be provision for emergency ordination to the priesthood via grave necessity?

Mosher,

The theology of Aquinas is, in this case, what is known as a theologumenon – a theological speculation. While it underlies the thinking of many of the theologians of the Church, and has actually been the basis for the current praxis, it is neither doctrine nor dogma. This is why I opined that for a bishop to ordain a man to the priesthood without first ordaining him a deacon would valid but not licit.

Deacon Ed

 

[mosher]

Deacon Ed:

Mosher,

The theology of Aquinas is, in this case, what is known as a theologumenon – a theological speculation. While it underlies the thinking of many of the theologians of the Church, and has actually been the basis for the current praxis, it is neither doctrine nor dogma. This is why I opined that for a bishop to ordain a man to the priesthood without first ordaining him a deacon would valid but not licit.

Deacon Ed

Right I know but what I was wondering was with all that we have said thus far how do we come to an understanding that a Bishop can ordain a priest or even a Bishop out of grave necessity. In a sense what I am asking is what is the theological line of thought that allows for exception from the canonical restriction and is contra to the position of Thomas?

 

[SMHW]

Does the position of Thomas preclude the ordination of a man to both the orders of deacon and priest at the same general time?

It would seem to me that in the case of ‘emergency’ this would be a dispensation from the required six months between ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood and not a case of ordination to the priesthood without ordination to the diaconate.

 

[mosher]

SMHW:

Does the position of Thomas preclude the ordination of a man to both the orders of deacon and priest at the same general time?

It would seem to me that the case of ‘emergency’ this would be a dispensation from the required six months between ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood and not a case of ordination to the priesthood without ordination to the diaconate.

What Thomas is arguing is that if one has not received Deacon then they cannot validly receive Priest or Bishop. So, if he were here he would say that the canonical restriction in part to protect the integrity and validity of Orders and not just a practical law.

While it is true that the minor order of Sub-Deacon was folded into the ordination rite of Deacon in the latin Church it comes down to there being a differnet form involved in the ordination of Deacon and Priest and Bishop. The Consecratory prayer is radically different and in my understanding of liturgical theology it cannot be combined in a single liturgical act. However, I could be wrong and that is why I am asking the question.

 

[GoLatin]

mosher:

Keeping in tandum the canonical restriction and the restriction given from theology by Thomas how then can there be provision for emergency ordination to the priesthood via grave necessity?

There is the fascinating and inspiring case of Father Eugene Hamilton, a 24-year-old Seminarian of the Archdiocese of New York, who was dying of cancer.

Special permission was obtained from Rome(Pope John Paul II himself!) for Hamilton to be ordained before the canonically required age of 25, and before he completed his seminary studies. There was the understanding that if Father Hamilton recovered from his cancer, that he would complete his seminary studies.

The day that Father Hamilton died, his condition had worsened. An Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of New York(I forget which one) was called to Father Hamilton’s parents house, where Hamilton had been staying.

Father Hamilton was ordained a Deacon, and immediately after that, he was ordained a Priest. Three hours later, he died.

I believe that his Funeral Mass was celebrated by Cardinal O’Connor, at Saint Peter’s Catholic Church in Haverstraw, New York state. His body was buried in the church cemetery, wearing Priestly vestments.

I hope to someday visit his grave.

I also hope that he will someday be Canonised a Saint. I have already seen a couple of people write on the Internet that he should be Canonised. If that happens, I would have him as one of my Patron Saints.

This story is related in the book “A Priest Forever”, by Father Benedict Groeschel. It is published by Our Sunday Visitor(www.osv.com), and is also available from other Catholic outlets online and elsewhere.

 

[mosher]

Yeah, Father Benedict told me that story aswell. I find it great for the purpose that it shows that the priest is not a functionary as many would claim. However, the example comes short of my question. But it does show that he was first ordained a deacon.

 

[GoLatin]

mosher:

Yeah, Father Benedict told me that story aswell. I find it great for the purpose that it shows that the priest is not a functionary as many would claim. However, the example comes short of my question. But it does show that he was first ordained a deacon.

The story of Father Hamilton proves that it is possible to be dispensed from the requirement that a man be a Deacon for at least six months before becoming a Priest.

And you are right, the Priest is not a mere “functionary”. Once a Priest, always a Priest.

 

[GoLatin]

mosher:

Keeping in tandum the canonical restriction and the restriction given from theology by Thomas how then can there be provision for emergency ordination to the priesthood via grave necessity?

I guess that the man could just be ordained a Priest, without being ordained as a Deacon.

Any comments?

 

[mosher]

GoLatin:

The story of Father Hamilton proves that it is possible to be dispensed from the requirement that a man be a Deacon for at least six months before becoming a Priest.

And you are right, the Priest is not a mere “functionary”. Once a Priest, always a Priest.

Right but that is a general practice of the law. Mere canonical restrictions can be lifted by the competant authority. However, I still think that it is correct to say that the canon is there to protect the integrity of the the theology of Thomas which proposes that you must be a deacon first. But I am still confused about issues of grave necessity.