Is a priest a deacon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elizium23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elizium23

Guest
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, in particular the Byzantine Tradition, does the teaching on Holy Orders match that of the Latin Church, which teaches that a bishop is also a priest and deacon, while a priest is also a deacon? In the Roman Rite, a bishop wears a pontifical dalmatic as a reminder of his diaconal ministry, and a chasuble which is proper to the priest. In the Extraordinary Form, a priest may frequently vest instead as a deacon or a subdeacon and discharge those liturgical roles. Is the same understanding shared in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I am curious because a member of the Orthodox Church in America, which I thought was mainstream Byzantine tradition, denies that Apostles are bishops, and also denies the above teachings.
 
Yes.
A priest is a deacon.
Just as a bishop is a priest and a deacon.
 
Once a man receives the order of deacon, priest, or bishop, he is forever changed. Just because he receives one order doesn’t mean he loses the character of the previous orders. This is why a bishop is said to receive the “fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders”. He has now received all three degrees of Holy Orders.
 
Windmill said:
Once a man receives the order of deacon, priest, or bishop, he is forever changed. Just because he receives one order doesn’t mean he loses the character of the previous orders. This is why a bishop is said to receive the “fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders”. He has now received all three degrees of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
So he doesn’t lose the characters that he already had. But suppose the College of Cardinals decides to elect a layman to the papacy, who then doesn’t actually become pope until he gets ordained a bishop. He accepts the job and the dean of the College of Cardinals ordains him a bishop. He never got ordained a priest or a deacon before that. There are no “characters” of that sort that he had before that. So now he’s a bishop. Is he also a priest and a deacon?
 
Elizium23 said:
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, in particular the Byzantine Tradition, does the teaching on Holy Orders match that of the Latin Church, which teaches that a bishop is also a priest and deacon, while a priest is also a deacon? In the Roman Rite, a bishop wears a pontifical dalmatic as a reminder of his diaconal ministry, and a chasuble which is proper to the priest. In the Extraordinary Form, a priest may frequently vest instead as a deacon or a subdeacon and discharge those liturgical roles. Is the same understanding shared in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I am curious because a member of the Orthodox Church in America, which I thought was mainstream Byzantine tradition, denies that Apostles are bishops, and also denies the above teachings.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Catholic Churches, like all of the Catholic Church, hold that Holy Orders imparts an indelible mark. The Eastern Orthodox do not. Whether most Eastern Orthodox teach that a presbyter continues to be a deacon, and bishop continues to be a deacon and a presbyter, I do not know. I do know that in the Byzantine tradition, a priest never vests as a deacon for liturgy, even if there are numerous priests with no deacon (something I’ve witnessed).
 
Yarb said:
So he doesn’t lose the characters that he already had. But suppose the College of Cardinals decides to elect a layman to the papacy, who then doesn’t actually become pope until he gets ordained a bishop. He accepts the job and the dean of the College of Cardinals ordains him a bishop. He never got ordained a priest or a deacon before that. There are no “characters” of that sort that he had before that. So now he’s a bishop. Is he also a priest and a deacon?
Click to expand...
As mentioned before, a bishop at ordination receives the fullness of Holy Orders. So even if he hadn’t gone through an official ceremony for deacon ordination and priestly ordination, the episcopal ordination instantly grants those qualities and more. (I don’t know what ceremony they’d really do in the case you present; I’m just thinking about the sacramental theology of it all.)

An analogy: Suppose as a rule I give out a piece of pie to each neighbor every Sunday. If next Sunday I give each a whole pie, did they get their usual piece of pie or not? Of course!
 
surritter said:
As mentioned before, a bishop at ordination receives the fullness of Holy Orders. So even if he hadn’t gone through an official ceremony for deacon ordination and priestly ordination, the episcopal ordination instantly grants those qualities and more. (I don’t know what ceremony they’d really do in the case you present; I’m just thinking about the sacramental theology of it all.)

An analogy: Suppose as a rule I give out a piece of pie to each neighbor every Sunday. If next Sunday I give each a whole pie, did they get their usual piece of pie or not? Of course!
Click to expand...
So the question then is whether the diaconal character is actually merely a part of the sacerdotal character rather than something separate from it, and whether the latter is merely a part of the episcopal character rather than something separate from it. And you’re saying the answer is “yes” to both questions.
 
Yarb said:
So the question then is whether the diaconal charcter is actually merely a part of the sacerdotal character rather than something separate from it, and whether the latter is merely a part of the episcopal character rather than something separate from it. And you’re saying the answer is “yes” to both questions.
Click to expand...
I think we have to avoid being “mathematical” about it. A deaconate character is “part of the sacerdotal character,” yes, but I hesitate to go any further in delineating what part that would be other than what the Church says about a deacon’s duties.
 
surritter said:
As mentioned before, a bishop at ordination receives the fullness of Holy Orders. So even if he hadn’t gone through an official ceremony for deacon ordination and priestly ordination, the episcopal ordination instantly grants those qualities and more. (I don’t know what ceremony they’d really do in the case you present; I’m just thinking about the sacramental theology of it all.)

An analogy: Suppose as a rule I give out a piece of pie to each neighbor every Sunday. If next Sunday I give each a whole pie, did they get their usual piece of pie or not? Of course!
Click to expand...
Actually I thought I remembered reading that if a lay person was elected pope he would have to go through all three being ordained a deacon then priest then bishop.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Actually I thought I remembered reading that if a lay person was elected pope he would have to go through all three being ordained a deacon then priest then bishop.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s similar to the famous story of Thomas Becket who was a deacon when elected Archbishop of Canterbury. He was ordained priest shortly after the election and then bishop shortly after that.
 
Interesting point – I guess that would be the case if they want to keep the flow of things consistent. But from the technical point of theology about the sacramental character of a bishop, I don’t think it would be absolutely required.
The apostles were the first bishops, and they along with their first few successors might not have been formally ordained as deacons, then priests, then apostles/bishops.

Of course, the “form” of some sacraments evolved over the ages, so I’m not saying they shouldn’t do the successive ordinations. But the original question revolved around an academic idea: whether a priest or bishop “contains” the qualities of the lower degree of orders.
 
In the West Syriac Churches, I’ve seen priests function in the deaconal role, but never vest as one.
 
Originally the orders were separate, and not contingent on a lower order. A deacon was a deacon, and priest a priest, and a bishop a bishop. In the Middle Ages, we see the codification of the cursus honorum, where you have to be a deacon, then a priest, then a bishop. All Catholic Churches follow this succession, and I think the Orthodox do as well. So the answer is (pragmatically) yes, a priest is a deacon (by virtue of being ordained a deacon first. The right of ordination of a presbyter in the Greek (Byzantine) Rite assumes a deacon, and the presbyter fulfills certain diaconal functions in the absence of a deacon, but does not vest. In reality, in the Greek/Byzantine Rite, the presbyter really does not have a role of his own (the deacon and bishop do, though), excepting for the Anointing of the Sick and the preparation of the gifts for the Divine Liturgy (which developed well after the cursus honorum was in place). A presbyter generally acts in the place of the bishop when he is absent, as well as in the place of the deacon when he is absent.
 
Yarb said:
So he doesn’t lose the characters that he already had. But suppose the College of Cardinals decides to elect a layman to the papacy, who then doesn’t actually become pope until he gets ordained a bishop. He accepts the job and the dean of the College of Cardinals ordains him a bishop. He never got ordained a priest or a deacon before that. There are no “characters” of that sort that he had before that. So now he’s a bishop. Is he also a priest and a deacon?
Click to expand...
The special law and the CIC both make it clear that, should a layman be elected, he must be ordained a deacon and a priest. IIRC, special law specifies a day between ordinations as a specific waiver of other canons.

CIC 1032 requires those to be ordained priests to have been deacons for 6 months.
CIC 1032 requires those to be ordained transitional deacons to have 5 years of theological and philosophical studies (IE, 5th year in seminary).
CIC 1035 requires those to be ordained deacons to have been Acolytes and Lectors for 6 months.

CIC 378 requires a candidate for bishop to be at least 35 years old, and to have been a priest for at least 5 years, and to hold a suitable licentiate (masters) or doctorate degree.

It’s been a VERY LONG time since a layman was elected pope.
It’s been a long time since anyone not yet in major orders was elected as pope.
It’s been a long time since anyone not already a priest was elected.

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) was the last non-bishop elected. (And he was a cardinal-priest who happened to not be a bishop.)

All the popes of the last couple centuries have been bishops prior to election. Almost all have been cardinals.
 
Yes a priest retains the order of deacon even after ordination to the priesthood. In the BCC if there is no deacon available for Divine Liturgy, the priest prays both the priestly and diagonal prayers.
 
AnthonyJ said:
Yes a priest retains the order of deacon even after ordination to the priesthood. In the BCC if there is no deacon available for Divine Liturgy, the priest prays both the priestly and diagonal prayers.
Click to expand...
And if several concelebrant priests, but no deacon, a concelebrant may say most of the deacon’s prompts to the principal celebrant, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top