Holy Orders Discussion

[AlbMagno]

ontologically

Sacramentally, not ontologically.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Imo, deacons are generally underappreciated. They do so much and get little thanks in return.

 

[dochawk]

The original deacons of Rome were advisors to the Pope, and administered the temporal resources to care for the poor and needy. They performed a role like cardinals today.

Also, early on, the next bishop was more likely to be chosen from the ranks of deacons than of priests!

And that includes Rome . . .

A full time assignment as a deacon is quite rare, and usually only for transitional deacons (but there are exceptions).

Our Eparchy, however, had one for quite some time, and he was assigned to our parish for a while to help with the school.

He started in our seminary for priestly formation, but on his parish assignment before diaconal ordination he fell in love!

So he got traded to the Ukrainians in Canada, but they didn’t get around to ordaining him (or not as a priest), and eventually got sent back to us after our Eparchy brought in a couple of married European priests and knew how to deal with it. After another couple of years passed, he was finally ordained a priest, but he spent a few as a wonderful deacon.

Generally, the level of a deacon’s involvement will be related to the demands and schedule of his secular job.

 

[TheMarriedKnight]

That makes me kinda of sad.

 

[AlbMagno]

One thing I consider interesting is that the Non-monastic Religious Orders (the mendicants in the 12th century, and the clerics regular and congregations in the 16th century) appeared to fill the void of the Deacons. The role of the active Orders was always to evangelize serving, to teach, to run shelters and food banks.

In the recent years after Vatican II, the role seems to be reversing, with the reappearing of Permanent Deacons, many active Orders seem to be diminishing. I wonder if this is God’s Plan to restore the original intent of the Holy Orders…

 

[kapp19]

Ontologically… by the sacrament. It’s a character, so it alters the dignity of the soul, the form, no?

I am just a lowly moralist… I dare not contend with dogmaticians! But I have no idea what a sacramental character is other than an ontological change in dignity.

 

[TheMarriedKnight]

Excellent observation. It makes perfect senses, for years nuns, monks, and friars (none ordained religious) did everything deacons was supposed to do, which is why our church properly decided they didn’t need anymore more attention, but the shortage of priests and none ordained religious caused them to bring back the diaconate. It kind of feels like the none ordained religious vocations only existed to fulfill a purpose and it has been accomplished.

 

[InThePew]

So, I can fairly say that deacon’s are not the priests assistants like a teachers aide, but more of an equal partner with a different role?

They assist the priest at mass but have specific part which are reserved to them - i.e. if there’s a deacon then he says / does those parts and not the priest/bishop.

Is the diaconate an important vocation in the world, could the church properly function without it? I sometimes feel likes underappreciated.

Some might say that the (Western) Church functioned perfectly well without them for something like 1500 years, but that would only be true of permanent deacons. Part of the problem is that permanent deacons have only been around (the first 500 years of the Church aside) for about 50 years which, by Church standards, is next to nothing and we’re really still trying to work out the role and function of deacon. That said, charity is of course essential to the Church’s mission and it’s worth remembering that the need to avoid neglecting this was the reason for having deacons originally.

Excellent observation. It makes perfect senses, for years nuns, monks, and friars (none ordained religious) did everything deacons was supposed to do, which is why our church properly decided they didn’t need anymore more attention

Imho the key difference with a deacon is their manner of life- deacons live and work in the world often (but not always) with a family and job, whereas religious live in communities. In this way, deacons bring a valuable perspective to ministry which would otherwise be absent and, in a parish particularly, effectively straddle the clerical and lay worlds. I was previously in a parish with a deacon who had grown up there, whose kids had been through the parish school, whose wife taught part time at the school and who had known (through the school and parish) other families in the parish for years. The knowledge of and connection to the parish community was something which no priest or religious could ever have.

 

[TheMarriedKnight]

Excellent answer, it’s very accurate description of the diaconate, I still feel like they are underappreciated. I think they’re still a lot to expand about them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think the issue with priest vs deacon, at least in USA, is that the priest is working his clergy job full-time and that a priest is generally in charge of the parish (with the possible exception of some parishes that may have an “administrator” in charge who is not a priest). Deacons are generally working part-time and either holding a separate day job or are retired. As such, the deacons are often not around as much as the priest, and don’t have the same level of responsibility for the parish as the priest. So it’s natural to view the priest as more important.

I’ve tried to relate to and appreciate deacons for what they bring to the table. I’ve liked a couple of them, such as one who is an older man and very involved in the charismatic movement - he’s an interesting, kind and spiritual guy. There are others who just do their tasks adequately and quietly. However, there’s also certain types of deacons who I would describe as super-extroverted and/or kind of putting themselves, their views, their families, etc front and center at all times. I find them sort of obnoxious to be honest. I don’t see them as being more special than the rest of the parish because they were called to be a deacon, and they seem to see themselves as being pretty important.

 

[AlbMagno]

I am no dogmatician what you say it’s true by orthodox theology.

I just think it’s silly for theologians to rank people by “ontology” (the part of philosophy which studies the existence of things) meaning how much Sacraments they can administer.

After all, a Bishop can also be excommunicated and can go to Hell (in which case the Holy Orders attached to the soul would be removed by God, in my opinion). So it only makes sense to rank people by Ecclesiology (which the Pope decides) and Holiness/Righteousness/Morality (which God decides), regardless of the soul being changed by Holy Orders.

 

[kapp19]

Ah, that’s not correct… character endures forever. Let me assure you of that. I am just a lowly moralist, but this point is quite clear… Sacramental character is never removed.

 

[DoGodsBidding1]

I have a ministerial agreement with our Pastor which provides for direction for my responsibilities at our Parish. I preach once a month, as does out other Deacon, and also at weekday Masses. One or both of us are present at each weekend Mass, and we also preside at Weddings and Funerals. We are part of our CCD and RCIA teams, and also participate in Bible studies and other such functions. We also coordinate activities at our Adoration Chapel. I still work while the other Deacon is retired, so he is more active in daily weekday activities. All of this is at the discretion of our Pastor, with whom we have a great relationship. We also participate in diocesan functions such as the Chrism Mass.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps it has already been said in the thread.

Currently (and farther back than I care to research) the process of one being ordained a priest is that they are first ordained a deacon (the term “transitional deacon” simply identifies them as “on track” to be ordained a priest).

When they are ordained a priest, the ordination of deacon is not “removed” or otherwise eliminated.

Thus, if there is a deacon serving at Mass, he reads the Gospel, as that is part of the role of deacon.

If there is no deacon present, the priest reads the Gospel. In other words, as Deacon (which he is) he reads (proclaims) the Gospel. And where there may be a bishop and priests at a Mass; if there is a deacon present, the deacon reads/proclaims the Gospel.

And as old as I am, I do not recall being at a Mass where there were priests as well as the bishop, but no deacons present, so don’t ask me… I don’t recall.

 

[otjm]

A deacon has answered what he does. At my Parish, our deacon was involved fin adult education, but we had a certified catechist who taught RCIA; both the deacon and the priest woudl give one or two nights’ presentations. Our deacon also had duties outside the parish at the behest of the archbishop, as he was involved in the permanent deaconate program.

A deacon’s boss is the bishop/archbishop. As he will have a parish (because of how parishes are set up in the US - geographically) he likely may have some duties there. However he may not be in the parish every week; an example might be Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, who gives lectures, retreats and seminars in parishes, workshops and conferences nationwide, as well as being a husband and parent (and was ordained at 35, if I recall), and favors bishops including younger men in the deaconate programs. So it is unlikely he is in his parish every week.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

Imho the key difference with a deacon is their manner of life- deacons live and work in the world often (but not always) with a family and job, whereas religious live in communities.

I will agree with this. Religious brothers are called to a life in their respective community. Ministries come out of that, some are as the poster mention: soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. some are in administrative positions within the province or in the order, some are educators, some are social workers. I do not believe lay brothers fill the same niche as permanent deacons, but I do see how there is some overlap. But honestly, depending on the community, priests may even be right there with the lay brothers too, indistinguishable from each other except for two things: mass or confessions. It’s just a different vocation. A vocation to a particular manner of life.

 

[Gorgias]

After all, a Bishop can also be excommunicated and can go to Hell (in which case the Holy Orders attached to the soul would be removed by God, in my opinion).

Umm… no. “Once a priest, always a priest.” One may lose his faculties to act as a priest, but (as @Kapp19 points out) the ontological change remains forever. (“You are a priest forever, in the line of Melchizedek”, remember?)

And as old as I am, I do not recall being at a Mass where there were priests as well as the bishop, but no deacons present, so don’t ask me… I don’t recall.

I’ve seen it. Rare, but it happens.

If there is no deacon present, the priest reads the Gospel. In other words, as Deacon (which he is) he reads (proclaims) the Gospel.

Umm… not sure that he proclaims “as deacon”. He proclaims as the celebrant (in the absence of a deacon).

A deacon’s boss is the bishop/archbishop. As he will have a parish (because of how parishes are set up in the US - geographically) he likely may have some duties there.

Right. In his role in the parish, though, he falls under the authority of the pastor, no?

 

[AlbMagno]

his faculties

When you say his faculties, what do you mean? Their canonical faculties? (i.e. licitness?).

 

[TheMarriedKnight]

One thing I consider interesting is that the Non-monastic Religious Orders (the mendicants in the 12th century, and the clerics regular and congregations in the 16th century) appeared to fill the void of the Deacons. The role of the active Orders was always to evangelize serving, to teach, to run shelters and food banks.

In recent years after Vatican II, the role seems to be reversing, with the reappearing of Permanent Deacons, many active Orders seem to be diminishing. I wonder if this is God’s Plan to restore the original intent of the Holy Orders…

I just realize that most people in religious life are nuns and mothers, most men that feel a religious call always go on to being in holy orders. There have always been few men in the religious life and even many of those went on to be in holy orders too. I’m starting to think that Saint Francis creating that vocation through Christ was just a way for Christ to give women leadership positions in the church, which isn’t a bad thing.

 

[AlbMagno]

While one may think so, women were actually not allowed to have Active/Apostolic Ministries as “Sisters” (the female branch of the Franciscans founded by Saint Clare was Monastic). The allowance, I think, came in the time of the Counter-Reform or a bit later

I would argue that women have been gaining importance since the start of Christianity, if you look at how many women we know from the Middle Ages, and how many women we know from Antiquity.