Diaconate and the Washing of the Feet

  • Thread starter Thread starter csoup223
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Digitonomy said:
So just to be sure about this, are you suggesting that

  1. *]The Apostles were in no way deacons?
    *]) The diaconate was instituted by man, not by God?
Click to expand...

  1. The Apostles were not ordained to the diaconate. They were ordained priests/bishops. When Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me”, he was already commissioning them to offer the Holy Sacrifice, something that is restricted only to bishops and priests.

    In this Sunday’s readings, Jesus further gives the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, something that is not the purview of the diaconate.

    As I read your statement, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loosen and, later on, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, this authority is extended to the rest of the Apostolic band, to a lesser degree. Thus, when Peter and the 11 (including St. Matthias) decreed that they needed the assistance of the men who would eventually become deacons, Peter was acting on the authority given to him by no less than Jesus, himself.

    If we were to subscribe to your line of reasoning, then, the election of St. Matthias to fill in the spot vacated by Judas Iscariot was an action of men rather than God. That is a very Protestant way of looking at it and it fails to take into account the authority of Peter and his Successors.
 
benedictgal said:
The Apostles were not ordained to the diaconate. They were ordained priests/bishops.
Click to expand...
Is this based on the New Testament? I doubt it.

If so, where exactly?

And can you clarify please what you mean by priests/bishops? Were they ordained priests, or bishops? After all, there is a difference, right? No one today is ordained “priest/bishop” they are ordained as either priest, or bishop, or deacon…not more than one.

And as others have noted, this analysis seems to leave out the diaconate. I think others here have raised excellent questions for those arguing from the New Testament–did God institute the Order of Deacons (sacramental ordination as we currently understand and practice it) or was it something the Church decided later?
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, Scripture does record who the first priests/bishops were, it was the Apostles. And, we also have the first record of Apostolic Succession with the election of Matthias to replace Judas.

The institution of the diaconate did not happen until the Apotles decided to appoint the seven deacons. This is very clearly stated in the Acts of the Apostles. The institution of the priesthood/episcopacy happened on Holy Thursday. Remember, deacons are not charged with “Do this in memory of me”, the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Where does Scripture say that “the Apostles” were the first priests/bishops?

Please, I am dying to know. I’ve never ever ever heard this claim before and I’ve never come across it in the numerous times I’ve read the New Testament.

Thanks. I look forward to your clarifying, simply, what you claimed:
Scripture does record who the first priests/bishops were, it was the Apostles
Click to expand...
I look forward to references to book, chapter, and verse references for that claim.
 
diggerdomer said:
Is this based on the New Testament? I doubt it.

If so, where exactly?

And can you clarify please what you mean by priests/bishops? Were they ordained priests, or bishops? After all, there is a difference, right? No one today is ordained “priest/bishop” they are ordained as either priest, or bishop, or deacon…not more than one.

And as others have noted, this analysis seems to leave out the diaconate. I think others here have raised excellent questions for those arguing from the New Testament–did God institute the Order of Deacons (sacramental ordination as we currently understand and practice it) or was it something the Church decided later?
Click to expand...
Actually, in the early history of the Church, there have been men who were simultaneously ordained to the priesthood/episcopacy. Furthermore, since the Apostles were the first priests/bishops, everything was done at once at the Last Supper.

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Why do you think that whenever there is a vacancy in a diocesan see, an apostolic administrator is appointed? Why do you think that the new Metropolitan of New York made it a point to say in his homily that he was beginning his Apostolic ministry in his new See? Every bishop can trace his apostolic lineage back down to the Apostles. That is why we have Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession first came into practice with the election of St. Matthias to replace Judas. In fact, the Apostles lay hands on him to consecrate him.

The diaconate came into being well after the Last Supper. All one has to do is read the Acts of the Apostles to note that. The Apostles said that it was not their mission to serve at the table, meaning, caring for the needs of the widows, orphans and the poor. Their job was to preach and celebrate the Mass. That is why they chose seven men to serve as the first deacons of the Church.
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, in the early history of the Church, there have been men who were simultaneously ordained to the priesthood/episcopacy.
Click to expand...
Can you give us one example from the New Testament to substantiate that claim? More would help, of course, but for now I’d personally settle for just one. Good luck.
benedictgal said:
Furthermore, since the Apostles were the first priests/bishops, everything was done at once at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Again…please, since we’re talking (I presume…correct me if I’m wrong) about the first century and the New Testament witness…where does the New Testament say the Apostles were the first priests/bishops? I really look forward to any book/chapter/verse reference you can help us with because in all the times I’ve read the New Testament and other first century writings I’ve never come across anyone speaking of the Apostles as a group being “ordained” “priests//bishops.”

Are “priests/bishops” the same thing, or two different offices/orders? And why are there no deacons? Or is Holy Orders not quite figured out yet?
benedictgal said:
The bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Well of course. But I am sure non-Catholics reading this thread appreciate the insight.
benedictgal said:
The diaconate came into being well after the Last Supper. All one has to do is read the Acts of the Apostles to note that.
Click to expand...
Which seems to beg the question that others have asked here, I think…is the diaconate then something instituted humanly by the Church and not by Christ? Sure seems that argument could be made from what you say.
benedictgal said:
The Apostles said that it was not their mission to serve at the table, meaning, caring for the needs of the widows, orphans and the poor. Their job was to preach and celebrate the Mass. That is why they chose seven men to serve as the first deacons of the Church.
Click to expand...
Where, exactly, again, did the Apostles say their mission was to celebrate the Mass?

That is what you said, right? Or did I misread what you typed?
 
As I read your statement, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loosen and, later on, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, this authority is extended to the rest of the Apostolic band, to a lesser degree.
Click to expand...
No one is ignoring this fact, but it simply isn’t relevant to the matter. What we are talking about is the fundamental nature of Holy Orders. The bishops have no authority to bind or loose when it comes to matters of faith. Their sacred duty is to defend the deposit of faith, not to modify it. If what you are suggesting, that the Apostles had the power via their ability to bind and to loose to add something to the Sacrament of Holy Orders that Jesus Himself instituted, then they would still have this kind of power today. However, Pope John Paul the Great told us when he definitively closed the matter on ordination of women that he did not have the power to make such a change.
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful
Click to expand...
But the Pope certainly has the authority to bind and to loose , yes? But he doesn’t have the power to add anything or to take anything away from what was already given by Christ. He can’t changed or add to the nature of a sacrament. And neither could the Apostles. Either the nature of the diaconate was present at the Last Supper, or it doesn’t exist because it couldn’t have been created later.
 
Yes, because the Order of the Deacon wasn’t implemented until the Acts of the Apostles. The divisions of episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate weren’t distinguished until after the Last Supper. That doesn’t mean they weren’t present there.

Again, you need to distinguish between the degrees or orders from the nature of the sacrament itself.
 
csoup223 said:
Yes, because the Order of the Deacon wasn’t implemented until the Acts of the Apostles. The divisions of episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate weren’t distinguished until after the Last Supper. That doesn’t mean they weren’t present there.

Again, you need to distinguish between the degrees or orders from the nature of the sacrament itself.
Click to expand...
I think, with all due respect, that you are mixing and jumbling things to go with your line of reasoning. You are also putting the cart before the horse. Even the prelate, whom you used as a source, clearly stated that the diaconate did not come into being until the Acts of the Apostles. While there was a charism of service, the Lord was not referring to the diaconate when he said “do this in memory of Me.” He was ordaining the Apostles to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The diaconate came much later.
 
Even the prelate, whom you used as a source, clearly stated that the diaconate did not come into being until the Acts of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Because the degree, know as the “order of the diaconate” does begin in Acts.

Are you trying to argue that the diaconal character of Holy Orders did not exist before we hear about it in Acts, or just the Order of the Diaconate? This is an important distinction that I have repeatedly made and you have repeatedly ignored.

Lastly, I repeat the fact that the command to “do this in memory of me” was not the only command Jesus gave to the Apostles. He also gave them the command found in Jn 13:14-15, “If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” Why is it you are disregarding one command in favor of the other?
 
csoup223 said:
Because the degree, know as the “order of the diaconate” does begin in Acts.

Are you trying to argue that the diaconal character of Holy Orders did not exist before we hear about it in Acts, or just the Order of the Diaconate? This is an important distinction that I have repeatedly made and you have repeatedly ignored.

Lastly, I repeat the fact that the command to “do this in memory of me” was not the only command Jesus gave to the Apostles. He also gave them the command found in Jn 13:14-15, “If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” Why is it you are disregarding one command in favor of the other?
Click to expand...
You are the one disregarding things, not me. Does the rite indicate that the deacon should do the washing of the feet? No. That is reserved to the celebrant. Rome clearly indicates that in her authoritative documents.

The scriptures clearly give us a timeline as to when the diaconate was instituted, and, such did not come into play during the Last Supper. Incidentally, Jesus washed the feet of the men who would become the first bishops of the Church. He was teaching them that humility and service are part of the charisms of being a bishop/priest in the Church. It is not just reserved for the diaconate, which came much later.

The quote that you gave is applicable to both the priest and the bishop since they are both pastors, one of his parish, the other of his diocese. They are in a position of leadership. Thus, when the pastor, be he the bishop or the priest, participates in the Mandatum as the one washing the feet (since he is the celebrant of the Mass), he is truly imitating what Christ did. This is not the duty of the deacon.
 
You are the one disregarding things, not me. Does the rite indicate that the deacon should do the washing of the feet? No. That is reserved to the celebrant. Rome clearly indicates that in her authoritative documents.
Click to expand...
I’m not disregarding the rite. Go back and read my posts. I haven’t told anyone to ignore the rites that Rome has sent out. However liturgical documents are different from magisterial documents. Washing of the feet is a tradition that has been done many different ways in many different places at many different occasions throughout the Church history. The fact is that liturgy can and does change, often to present help us to better express a teaching of the Church. I’m not telling anyone to ignore what Rome has given us for a liturgy. I’m simply putting forward the question about the diaconate in light of our deepening doctrinal understanding of the order since the Vatican II. Let’s keep in mind that the first revision of the liturgy after Vatican II has had revision itself to make sure that our liturgy expresses our understanding of the teachings of the Church. So give me some magisterial evidence. We aren’t discussing a matter of immediate practice, only theoretical practice.
The scriptures clearly give us a timeline as to when the diaconate was instituted, and, such did not come into play during the Last Supper. Incidentally, Jesus washed the feet of the men who would become the first bishops of the Church. He was teaching them that humility and service are part of the charisms of being a bishop/priest in the Church. It is not just reserved for the diaconate, which came much later
Click to expand...
Simple yes or no question: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?
The quote that you gave is applicable to both the priest and the bishop since they are both pastors, one of his parish, the other of his diocese. They are in a position of leadership. Thus, when the pastor, be he the bishop or the priest, participates in the Mandatum as the one washing the feet (since he is the celebrant of the Mass), he is truly imitating what Christ did. This is not the duty of the deacon.
Click to expand...
So far this is the only real point I’ve heard in support of the priest washing the feet, and it is a valid point. However I would still pose the question of whether or not the sacramental nature of the deacon, who is in the person of Christ the Servant, would better symbolize what it conveys. After all, while the deacon may not be the celebrant he is a member of the hierarchy, part of the persona Christi capitas. There would still be your image of leadership washing the feet.
 
csoup223 said:
I’m not disregarding the rite. Go back and read my posts. I haven’t told anyone to ignore the rites that Rome has sent out. However liturgical documents are different from magisterial documents. Washing of the feet is a tradition that has been done many different ways in many different places at many different occasions throughout the Church history. The fact is that liturgy can and does change, often to present help us to better express a teaching of the Church. I’m not telling anyone to ignore what Rome has given us for a liturgy. I’m simply putting forward the question about the diaconate in light of our deepening doctrinal understanding of the order since the Vatican II. Let’s keep in mind that the first revision of the liturgy after Vatican II has had revision itself to make sure that our liturgy expresses our understanding of the teachings of the Church. So give me some magisterial evidence. We aren’t discussing a matter of immediate practice, only theoretical practice.

Simple yes or no question: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?

So far this is the only real point I’ve heard in support of the priest washing the feet, and it is a valid point. However I would still pose the question of whether or not the sacramental nature of the deacon, who is in the person of Christ the Servant, would better symbolize what it conveys. After all, while the deacon may not be the celebrant he is a member of the hierarchy, part of the persona Christi capitas. There would still be your image of leadership washing the feet.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide any magisterial document or evidence other than your own opinion. Is it not enough for you that the rubrics call for onlly the priest or bishop to do this? The deacon has a very limited role. Even if here were given a leadership role of, say being in charge of youth ministry or altar servers, he is not the final authority, the pastor and the bishop are.
 
I’ve provided magisterial documents from Rome that reference the washing of the feet in relation to the diaconate, and I have provided a magisterial document from Ireland which explicitly makes the connection. I could go hunting for more, but you haven’t provided any.

And you didn’t answer my question.

Yes or no: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?
 
csoup223 said:
I’ve provided magisterial documents from Rome that reference the washing of the feet in relation to the diaconate, and I have provided a magisterial document from Ireland which explicitly makes the connection. I could go hunting for more, but you haven’t provided any.

And you didn’t answer my question.

Yes or no: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?
Click to expand...
You have only provided a YouTube broadcast, which is hardly magisterial. What you seem to ignore, as I see it, is the fact that the washing of the feet is reserved to the celebrant, not the deacon. The diaconate came much later. The deacon is also at the lower rung of the sacrament of Holy Orders. He assists the celebrant at Mass, but, it is not the same sharing as that of the priest. The priest is the bishop’s closest collaborator. He celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and he hears confessions, faculties given to him at his ordination by his bishop. We cannot say the exact same thing about the deacon. As I see it, you are trying to make the diaconate more than what it is meant to be.
 
benedictgal said:
As I read your statement, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loosen and, later on, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, this authority is extended to the rest of the Apostolic band, to a lesser degree. Thus, when Peter and the 11 (including St. Matthias) decreed that they needed the assistance of the men who would eventually become deacons, Peter was acting on the authority given to him by no less than Jesus, himself.

If we were to subscribe to your line of reasoning, then, the election of St. Matthias to fill in the spot vacated by Judas Iscariot was an action of men rather than God. That is a very Protestant way of looking at it and it fails to take into account the authority of Peter and his Successors.
Click to expand...
It sounds like your main point is that an act by the pope or the Church can be understood as an act of God. If so,

  1. *]Is there any reason the Church cannot abolish the diaconate as it did the subdiaconate?
    *]Is there any reason the Church cannot institute yet another sacramental major order comprising a part of the fullness of Holy Orders?
 
Digitonomy said:
It sounds like you are suggesting that any act by the pope or the Church can be understood as an act of God. If so,

  1. *]Is there any reason the Church cannot abolish the diaconate as it did the subdiaconate?
    *]Is there any reason the Church cannot institute yet another sacramental major order comprising a part of the fullness of Holy Orders?
Click to expand...

  1. Well, then, how would you define binding and loosening?
 
benedictgal said:
Well, then, how would you define binding and loosening?
Click to expand...
I have always understood it as establishing and enforcing disciplines, defining and clarifying doctrines, and of course the forgiveness of sins. I hadn’t understood it as instituting new sacraments.

But enough about me. Let’s get back to the questions I asked you:

  1. *]Is there any reason the Church cannot abolish the diaconate as it did the subdiaconate? *]Is there any reason the Church cannot institute yet another sacramental major order comprising a part of the fullness of Holy Orders?
 
Digitonomy said:
I have always understood it as establishing and enforcing disciplines, defining and clarifying doctrines, and of course the forgiveness of sins. I hadn’t understood it as instituting new sacraments.

But enough about me. Let’s get back to the questions I asked you:

  1. *]Is there any reason the Church cannot abolish the diaconate as it did the subdiaconate? *]Is there any reason the Church cannot institute yet another sacramental major order comprising a part of the fullness of Holy Orders?
Click to expand...

  1. The fact that the Apostles recognized that there was a need for the diaconate and the fact that Peter had been given the authority to bind and loosen should be enough justification. They were not instituting a new sacrament; they were adding another dimension to an already existing one.

    The subdiaconate was not a major sacramental order.

    Furthermore, why would the Church want to add another major order?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top