Holy Orders Expanded

[phil19034]

You just said ordaining widower deacons into the priesthood should only be an exception not the norm, most people that become deacons are happy staying at that place in holy orders. I have hard time believing that God chosen priests can miss their calling tbh.

Not exactly.

I said permanent Deacons becoming priests should remain the exception, not the norm.

I have no issue with a widower Deacon becoming a priest, provided that both he & his bishop discern that he has a calling to the priesthood (whether a missed calling or a later in life calling)

And yes, some men do have callings to the priesthood later in life.

NOTE: what I was responding to @usige about is the idea that currently married Deacons (not widowed) might one day be allowed to be ordained as priests. The idea is that after X amount of time as a Deacon, if a Deacon & bishop (plus, I assume his pastor) feel that the married deacon has a calling to the priesthood, he could be ordained as a “part time” priest. If that ever happens, I would want to see it be rare & never become a norm.

God Bless

 

[OldCAFMember]

OldCAFMember:

The subdiaconate already existed in the year 250, so it is ancient. Its suppression in 1972 was therefore a tragic loss.

What kinds of things would you want them to do now, if restored beyond the EF communities? Were you thinking only of transitional subdeacons, or something else, now that permanent Deacons exist?

The same responsibilities that they had historically, and continue to have in EF seminaries.

 

[Anesti33]

Hey, the Carmelite Sisters at my church take good care of liturgical flowerpots!

 

[dochawk]

On the flip side, after his first time offering Divine Liturgy with a deacon (at the other parish), my priest commented that the deacon did most of the work, and he could just stand there “like a potted plant” . . .

 

[Gorgias]

Before 1973, the orders were:

• Porter - minor order (not part of Holy Orders - suppressed in 1973 in the Roman Rite)
• Lector - minor order (not part of Holy Orders - still exists in Roman Rite)
• Exorcist - minor order (not part of Holy Orders - suppressed in 1973 in the Roman Rite)
• Acolyte - minor order (not part of Holy Orders - still exists in Roman Rite)
• Subdeacon - major order (not part of Holy Orders - suppressed in 1973, liturgical duties transferred to Acolyte and Deacon)
• Deacon - major order (first level of Holy Orders)
• Priest - major order (2nd level of Holy Orders)
• Bishop - fully realized order (3rd level of Holy Orders)

Hmm… actually, ‘acolyte’ and ‘lector’ no longer exist as orders, either. There are ministries of acolyte and lector into which men are instituted, but they’re not orders.

And, just for the sake of completeness: these days, a man enters into the clerical state with his ordination as a deacon; back in the day, tonsure (prior to porter) was the entry point as a cleric.

it is a little difficult to see some parishioners treat second year seminarians in higher regard than deacons that have been ordained for 20+ years.

On the other hand, it’s amusing to see some folks greet deacons after Mass (especially Christmas and Easter) with a “good morning, Father!” – after all, they saw him up on the altar in a dalmatic, so he must be a priest, right?

However, there are SOME Deacons (perhaps a very small percentage) who missed their calling to the priesthood, got married and later became a Deacon.

These widowed Deacons who missed their priestly call (regardless of how small) should be allowed to become priests if they & their bishops discern they actually have a call to the priesthood.

If I missed my call to marry Jane and married Alice instead, should I be allowed to become Jane’s husband, too, merely by virtue of the fact that I “missed my call”?

 

[Elf01]

If I missed my call to marry Jane and married Alice instead, should I be allowed to become Jane’s husband, too, merely by virtue of the fact that I “missed my call”?

If Alice has died, and Jane is single it wouldn’t be a problem (widowed was specified).

 

[phil19034]

Hmm… actually, ‘acolyte’ and ‘lector’ no longer exist as orders, either. There are ministries of acolyte and lector into which men are instituted, but they’re not orders.

Yes, I know. I just didn’t feel it was necessary for the purpose of my post to explain that the two minor orders were renamed to ministries.

If I missed my call to marry Jane and married Alice instead, should I be allowed to become Jane’s husband, too, merely by virtue of the fact that I “missed my call”?

If you missed your calling to marry Jane and married Alice, you could still marry Jane if you become widowed and she’s free to marry.

I’m primarily talking about WIDOWED Deacons.

 

[Gorgias]

If Alice has died, and Jane is single it wouldn’t be a problem (widowed was specified).

Nope. The context was that of a man who had “missed his calling” and embarked on another, but subsequently should be allowed to pick up his “missed” call while still married.

I just didn’t feel it was necessary for the purpose of my post to explain that the two minor orders were renamed to ministries.

Other than the fact that they are no longer ‘orders’, I guess.

NOTE: what I was responding to @usige about is the idea that currently married Deacons (not widowed) might one day be allowed to be ordained as priests. The idea is that after X amount of time as a Deacon, if a Deacon & bishop (plus, I assume his pastor) feel that the married deacon has a calling to the priesthood, he could be ordained as a “part time” priest.

I’m primarily talking about WIDOWED Deacons.

You are? Umm… if you say so.

 

[dochawk]

I’ll note that there is not a single US state that allows a man to marry his widow’s sister . . .

 

[Anesti33]

How about the Mormons?

 

[dochawk]

In fact, they never did . . . (nor has any Moslem ever, nor any polygamous Hindu or Jew)

 

[SKWill]

I know a couple of widowed deacons who became priests and, based on their experiences, the rarity of widowed deacons becoming priests in as much a matter of logistics as it the difference in the vocations. In their cases they were both widowed young enough (in their 50s), both were in full-time paid ministries beyond their liturgical duties for many years before being widowed, and both had full pensions from their first careers. In addition to determining whether widowed deacons have the vocational calling to or ministerial aptitude for priesthood, their bishops often face the practical questions of are they young enough and can they afford retirement on their own if they’ll be on the diocesan payroll for maybe only 15-20 years before hitting mandatory retirement.

 

[phil19034]

You are? Umm… if you say so.

I was discussing two different topics. My original discussion is about widower deacons. Then, I addressed one poster about the potential of married deacons becoming priests.

I’m not a proponent of married deacons becoming priests, but I would prefer that over lay married men becoming priests.

But again, most of my posters were not discussing that, nor am I proposing that married deacons become priests.

I’m focused on widowed deacons who missed their calling to the priesthood or have a later calling to the priesthood.

I simply think widowed deacons should be able to become priests without question IF they & their Bishop agree that they have a calling to the priesthood.

No more, no less.

HOWEVER, IF the Vatican wants to allowed married men to become priests, I would hope that they have to spend X number of years as a Deacon first, in order to insure they can balance ministry, family, and a full time job.

 

[ChuckB]

I’ll note that there is not a single US state that allows a man to marry his widow’s sister . . .

I was actually halfway into (name removed by moderator)uting my Google search when I stopped and said, “Hey, wait a minute…”

 

[Usige]

I don’t think there should be a “normalized path.” I think it should still be the exception, rather than the norm.

What I meant by “normalized” is not that it become common, or the normal path, but rather that it wasn’t treated as an aberration. My point was that there are many that see a man that was originally ordained as a deacon, without intent to continue to the presbyterate, as reaching “above his station” if he were later ordained as a priest.

 

[Usige]

But I do think that there are a few Deacons who missed their calling to the priesthood and would have become priests if they were still single.

That is likely the case, and perhaps I am misreading what you are saying, but it does seem to imply that marriage and the call to priesthood are somehow incompatible. I suspect that there are some portion of men that may have never felt a calling to either the diaconate or priesthood if not for having been married and having children first.

Personally, I can think of maybe a half-dozen seasoned deacons that would continue discernment to the priesthood if their bishop asked them to. All of those men have living wives, and some still have children at home. One in particular had been ordained as a deacon in his late 30s and had been a deacon for almost 15 years before he ever felt a call to the priesthood.

I also know 2 or 3 priests that were married, raised kids, and then after their marriage broke down they petitioned for a declaration of nullity. I struggle to see a man that was ordained a deacon and then felt a call to the priesthood a decade later is somehow different to men who felt the call after their marriage broke down. I would say that they both could have valid calls and the only thing stopping one is the current discipline of the Church. I would not say either of them missed their calling.

Here really is my point. All people are first called to serve one another through the universal call of baptism. That call can further be strengthened via one or both of the sacraments of service (Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders).

Of the baptized, some men are called to a deeper service through the Church. Those men are ordained as deacons. Some deacons are then called to further service as priests, and some portion of priests are called to be bishops. It is a continuum and not separate branches as some often imply.

Essentially a priest must first have a diaconal calling just as a bishop has to first have a priestly calling. Neither are called to be a priest or bishop without those underlying callings. They might not directly acknowledge them, but diaconal ordination should never just be a check box a priest is doing as a step to the priesthood. That is part of the whole reason for the diaconte to be restored as a full and separate order. It wasn’t just so there was a level a man could stop at below the priesthood, but the recognition that it is not simply a ceremonial milestone. That separation does not mean that it is a completely separate path from additional consecrations in the hierarchy, but rather that each stage builds upon the earlier stage.

It is this idea that a permanent deacon has a different, and fixed, calling from a priest that I bristly at. I also think it is partially why there is the mistaken belief, as stated in the original question, that permanent deacons really aren’t part of the same sacrament of holy order.