Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[mercer87]

As I read the argument for the ordination of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Church and the complaint of the injustice because married converts have been admitted to Holy Orders, there is one thing that comes to my mind. I think that we have to remember that the number of married converts that have been admitted to Holy Orders is small and this is an indult, not the rule. Not every married minister who converts and has applied for Holy Orders has been accepted. More have been turned down than accepted. This has been done on a case by case bais. The rule still stands. If you want to be a secular priest in the Latin Church, you must be single or widowed. Obviously this question does not apply to those who request admission to religious life. Even in Secular Orders such as Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans, any secular member of these orders who wishes to be a priest, must be single or widowed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother,
I am aware that the admission to the priesthood of converted ministers is an indult and is done on a case-to-case basis. Isn’t every vocation handled on a case-to-case basis? What I am saying is that the Church withholds that indult from the people who have been born Catholic, are married, but experience the call to the priesthood. I certainly do not make any demands on the Church to ordain whoever asks to be. There must be discernment by both candidate AND Church. I am asking why the Church does not even attempt to discern vocations to the priesthood amongst lifelong, married Catholics. I appreciate your explanations and you have given me some words to think about, along with the other contributors to this discussion. God Bless you, Brother.

 

[mercer87]

Dr. Mark,

The latter description of the equity language is the one I am using. I am not trying to promote affirmative action or proportional representation to the priesthood. But it is an issue that has to be definatively addressed by the Church with reason and explanation because it is causing problems amongst the faithful.

A slight explanation, I believe Pope John Paul II defined the prohibition on the ordination of women to the priesthood as doctrine as opposed to the discipline of celibacy, but I could be mistaken. Can someone help me out?

 

[JReducation]

Brother,
I am aware that the admission to the priesthood of converted ministers is an indult and is done on a case-to-case basis. Isn’t every vocation handled on a case-to-case basis? What I am saying is that the Church withholds that indult from the people who have been born Catholic, are married, but experience the call to the priesthood. I certainly do not make any demands on the Church to ordain whoever asks to be. There must be discernment by both candidate AND Church. I am asking why the Church does not even attempt to discern vocations to the priesthood amongst lifelong, married Catholics. I appreciate your explanations and you have given me some words to think about, along with the other contributors to this discussion. God Bless you, Brother.

I’m speculating here, because I’m not the Holy See, so don’t take my response to the bank. Judging on how the Church ordinarilly functions, the word “indult” is probably key here. The indult specifically mentions “married clergymen who convert to the Catholic faith.” To extend that to married Catholic men, would then be another indult. That’s just one point that crosses my mind.

Another point that crosses my mind is from a purely legal perspective. If one is baptized into the Catholic faith before marriage, then one assumes everything that the Catholic Church teaches and all of the Catholic Church’s disciplines. That being the case, those people are not in need of an indult, because canonical situation is not exceptional, as is the case of the minister who converts to Catholicism. The conversion of a Protestant minister or an Orthdox priest to Catholicism is an exception. It does not happen every day and the person did not enter the Church until after he was married. Therefore the celibacy requirement can be dispensed with, because all the circumstance are not the same as those of a man who has been part of the Church since before he married. In other words, the man who was part of the Church before he married had the opportunity to apply to a seminary, but did not do so. The converted minister did not have this opportunity.

Finally, I believe that the indult was granted because entire Christian communities were asking to be received into the Catholic Church, along with their ministers. Bringing in the ministers and allowing them to become priests facilitated the conversion of non Catholic Christians. It was a practical decision, not one of favoritism. The way I see it is this. If you bring in the pastor, then the flock will follow. Such would not be the case if you ordain a married Catholic man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mercer87]

That’s an interesting point, Brother. I hadn’t looked at it from that angle.

My objection/concern would be that if a vocation is not felt until after marriage (say a man marries at age 25 but does not feel a call to the priesthood until the age of 30), then what happens? Should a marriage be broken so he can pursue it? And if not, how should the Church help him handle the burden?

 

[JReducation]

That’s an interesting point, Brother. I hadn’t looked at it from that angle.

My objection/concern would be that if a vocation is not felt until after marriage (say a man marries at age 25 but does not feel a call to the priesthood until the age of 30), then what happens? Should a marriage be broken so he can pursue it? And if not, how should the Church help him handle the burden?

That’s a valid question. Having been a spiritual director for many people, I would begin by saying that this is a topic to be taken up with a spiritual director. Those of us who specialize either in spirituality or mystical theology are usually well trained to help souls in conflic. Please understand, that conflict is not exclusively conflict between sin and virtue. Conflict can also be between two good choices, in this case the priesthood and marriage.

Were I someone’s spiritual director, who was in this situation, I would encourage a period of discernment. Here’s my idea. Even though the Church’s discipline excludes married men from being ordained priests, does not mean that one should not carefully discern what is happening here. The first thing that we have to discern is whether this is a movement of the Spirit or of the emotions. They are not the same. We can have an affective desire or attachment for something, but to follow that, without the light of reason, would be very dangerous. On the flip side, reason without the light of faith, is incomplete. We can’t reason through this situation. We have to bring faith into the picture to guide reason. If we allow ourselves to be led by cold reason, we’re going to feel cheated, excluded and abandoned by the Church and even by God. We can even begin to believe that God is teasing us with something that is out of our reach. That too would be tragic.

We would have to work at understanding our motives for wanting to become a priest. Maybe those motives are very honorable and holy, but the question that has to be faced is whether or not those goals have to be abandoned or can they be achieved within one’s current married state. I’ve noticed that many Catholics tend to place the priesthood on a pedestal. This does not mean that the priesthood is not worth our veneration and respect. Afterall, it is a gift from Christ to the Church and there are certain sacramental functions that only a priest can perform. That being said, the priesthood is not all emcompassing. Much of what a priest does during a tyical day can be done by a lay person. Priests don’t spend their day celebrating mass and hearing confessions. In fact, some priests never celebrate any sacrament other than say mass. I’m reminded of my Carthusian friends who never leave their hermitage and have little or no contact with the laity, not even at mass, because their mass is within their cloister. In my own community, we have 60 friars. Only three are priests; but they are not allowed to celebrate the sacraments outside of the religious house. They are ordained for the benefit of the community, not the laity. Then there are those priests who spend their lives in universities, chanceries, the military, hospitals and other situations that are not parrochial. My guess is that those in the Armed Forces and those in hospitals probably celebrate the sacraments much more frequently than the average priest in the parish.

Once you have discerned and realized that the sacramental ministry is a small part of a priest’s day (not small because it is insignificant, but because it takes up a small amount of his day), once you realize this, then you are left with the other duties of the average parish priest. And we would have to discern if there is a way that a man who is married to become involved in such ministry or service to the Church. There is not reason why he could not be.

That being addressed, there arises the question about sacramental ministry. Here we arrive at two options open to the married man. First is the permanent diaconate. I would certainly help a married man discern if this is his true calling. It may well be. Second is the call to the cross, as St. Paul of the Cross, St. John of the Cross and our holy Father St. Francis taught us. The reality is, that our hearts and minds can be moved in many directions, but we cannot go everywhere, even if the movement does come from outside of us.

I am reminded by the many times that Christ has revealed himself privately to many souls, such as St. Faustina, whom he commanded to found a new religious congregation, but also ordered her to be obedient. St. Faustina died without founding her new congregation. In fact, today we celebrate her feast day. The acceptance of a cross with love, rather than disappointment, has a redemptive value.

These are just some thoughts. I could be completely wrong. But this is how I would try to help, if such a person were to come to me for spritual guidance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree that nobody has a right to ordination. However, I think the justice issue he’s referring to is that certain groups of married people are granted at least an opportunity to be judged and ordained, while Latin Rite Catholics by birth are stopped before they start. It reeks of insincerity and faithlessness to the discipline the Church uses to turn at least hundreds of men away from the seminary door without any consideration or discernment.

Part of discernment is if one meets the disciplines that are laid out as requirements for ordination.

One of the requirements in the United States is that the man to be ordained must have a Masters of Divinity, is it an injustice that men who can not complete the M.Div. are excluded from ordination? Another requirement is that one must be a man to be ordained, is it an injustice that women can not be ordained?

One, the M.Div., is a discipline, the other is Dogma (though some try to aruge that it is not) but I have heard both being described as injusticies but are they?

I would say no, as no one has a right to be ordained there is no injustice when one is turned down.

Those who “fail” out for some reason can also not be thought to be suffering an injustice as we will not know the full reason for their being removed as the Church will not speak as to why.

Yes, those who are born Catholic have to follow the rules, those who are not do not, that is not an injustice, that is life. It is unfair but life is not fair. Unfairness is not injustice.

The Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways, and I doubt He makes broad sweeping “black or white” restrictions that would get in His own way should He call certain men to the priesthood.

Again, I doubt that the Holy Spirit would work against the rules of His own Church without working to change those rules before acting.

There is something that has been lost in the Church. That of the ministy of the deacon. Might not many married men who think they feel called to the priesthood in the Latin Church really be called to the diaconate?

Somehow the diaconte has become nothing more than a junior priest in training. The diaconte is not that, even the transitional diaconate is not that.

 

[mercer87]

Part of discernment is if one meets the disciplines that are laid out as requirements for ordination.

One of the requirements in the United States is that the man to be ordained must have a Masters of Divinity, is it an injustice that men who can not complete the M.Div. are excluded from ordination? Another requirement is that one must be a man to be ordained, is it an injustice that women can not be ordained?

One, the M.Div., is a discipline, the other is Dogma (though some try to aruge that it is not) but I have heard both being described as injusticies but are they?

I would say no, as no one has a right to be ordained there is no injustice when one is turned down.

Those who “fail” out for some reason can also not be thought to be suffering an injustice as we will not know the full reason for their being removed as the Church will not speak as to why.

Yes, those who are born Catholic have to follow the rules, those who are not do not, that is not an injustice, that is life. It is unfair but life is not fair. Unfairness is not injustice.

Failing to complete the M.Div is different than being married. The M.Div is a test of one’s mental ability and capacity to preach the Gospel. Marriage is not. I didn’t know marriage was such an impediment to priestly ministry. I agree that the restriction of the priesthood to men is a doctrine, and I don’t question that because the Church has explained quite clearly that Christ did not give them that authority. However, the “That’s just the way it is” or “Life’s not fair” explanations don’t fly. That screams “We don’t have an explanation, just accept it!” If there was a authoritative explanation for the reasons for it from the Church, I’d accept it. Instead all I get is, “That’s just what the Church says. Deal with it.”

Again, I doubt that the Holy Spirit would work against the rules of His own Church without working to change those rules before acting.

There is something that has been lost in the Church. That of the ministy of the deacon. Might not many married men who think they feel called to the priesthood in the Latin Church really be called to the diaconate?

Somehow the diaconte has become nothing more than a junior priest in training. The diaconte is not that, even the transitional diaconate is not that.

Is the Holy Spirit trying to work but men are ignoring Him? Is this how He’s trying to awaken the apostles?

The ministry of deacon has largely been lost because the Church suppressed it for so long and there are still bishops who have no program in place for their training. My diocese has had only three classes of deacons ordained since Vatican II lifted the restrictions on the diaconate. Each time over 30 deacons have been ordained. Our current bishop is finally making it regular (every two years) but there still won’t be another class until 2011. And good luck trying to find anything promoting it in my diocese. Far too often we get the impression of “Priest or nothing” and then offering married men with vocations the diaconate when it’s a completely different vocation. If I became a deacon I’d feel like I was “settling” for it and I’d be bitter.

 

[otjm]

Part of discernment is if one meets the disciplines that are laid out as requirements for ordination.

I would agree; however, if the requirements are skewed, so is the process. We may have a disagreement that they are skewed or not.

One of the requirements in the United States is that the man to be ordained must have a Masters of Divinity, is it an injustice that men who can not complete the M.Div. are excluded from ordination? Another requirement is that one must be a man to be ordained, is it an injustice that women can not be ordained?

Perhaps justice is not the word I should use; or perhaps we have a disagreeent as to what justice actuaully means or how it is done. Given the case of Father Solanus Casey, and M. Div may not be an absolute. As to the issue of women’s ordination, certainly a lot of women and not a few men feel that it is; however, it may be that their view of justice is skewed and that the matter reeks of justice, as opposed to injustice, because this is a matter of Divine Revelation and doctrine, not a matter of discipline.

I know of nothing in the Gospels that says the Church has the right and duty to make unjust disciplinary rules. And I think that history is repleate with injustices worked in the Church’s name, or by the Church. It also may well be that a disciplinary rule is just in one circumstance (e.g. as a means of resolving an issue such as misconduct); but it is also easy for disciplinary rules to take on a life of their own, as if they are proper in and of themselves as opposed to being written to address specific issues. There was a time in our history when prominent Church members were known to have concubines. That, I think we could all agree, is a tad bit over the edge, although it appears to still be a popular activity in members of the laity in Europe, perhaps to a greater degree than in the US.

Part of what I am trying to get at is the issue that the language and defense of celibacy in the Roman rite is written in a way that leaves one to ask questions about the reality of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and the legitimacy of married clergy in the Roman rite re: converts. It not ony amazes me but pains me to hear comments made by no less than Cardinals which in essence ignore or treat the Eastern rites as a very minor ancillary at best. One can exercise hubris without necessarily being aware of it at all. It is, nonetheless, hubris. I am not suggesting that all disciplinary rules need to be in lockstep and identical. I am still waiting to hear, after 45 years of hearing the “talk”, why the Roman rite insists on celibacy as mandatory, except when it isn’t.

It may well be that the loosening of the rule that JP2 did, in allowing converts to be ordained, is the beggining of a slow process heading towards allowing married men to be ordained in the Roman rite. I am not necessarily well known for patience.

I would say no, as no one has a right to be ordained there is no injustice when one is turned down.

Those who “fail” out for some reason can also not be thought to be suffering an injustice as we will not know the full reason for their being removed as the Church will not speak as to why.

My initial reaction to that is “here we go again with clericalism”. Maybe that is not a fair reaction (and I do not suggest that you are promoting it, but rather that I think you clearly identify their refusal to address the issue). Again, perhaps justice is not the correct term; but I think that disciplines normally need to have a rational reasoning behind them. The issue of M.Div does; Father Casey is a good example. The issue of women being ordainded does; Revelation and doctrine support the issue (or rather, are the issue).

Again, I doubt that the Holy Spirit would work against the rules of His own Church without working to change those rules before acting.

And to that I would add that a number of issues the Church has changed position on in its history have been from bottom up, not top down. It may well be that the work is being done, but slowly.

There is something that has been lost in the Church. That of the ministy of the deacon. Might not many married men who think they feel called to the priesthood in the Latin Church really be called to the diaconate?

Somehow the diaconte has become nothing more than a junior priest in training. The diaconte is not that, even the transitional diaconate is not that.

Having worked directly with our deacon, and our prior deacon, yes maybe no. They are two distinctly different vocations; started out differently, and with the reinstitution of the permanent diaconate, are still different. I would not be the least bit shocked if I found that some of our permanent deacons, should the rule be changed, might want to be ordained. However, if they have used this as a back door to being in line to be ordained should th4e rules change, I would submit that is at very best a poor excuse to be ordained deacon.

While the deacon is the one to read the Gospel at a Mass in which he serves, he certainly is not the one administering the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconcilliation, Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick. He can witness marriages, and baptize; but he does not administer the sacrament of marriage any more than the priest does, and in an emergency anyone, including an atheist, can baptize. Being called to administer sacraments is a completely different vocation than being called to serve the bishop in whatever capacity the bishop should so choose (which may well not be working in and for a parish). They are not psuedo priests (in spite of the fact that ll too many in our parish address our deacon as “Father”).

And who knows; maybe the reinstitution of the deaconate is a step in releaving the impression that one cannot be married and serve the Church in any extensive capacity.

 

[JReducation]

I would agree; however, if the requirements are skewed, so is the process. We may have a disagreement that they are skewed or not.

Perhaps justice is not the word I should use; or perhaps we have a disagreeent as to what justice actuaully means or how it is done. Given the case of Father Solanus Casey, and M. Div may not be an absolute. As to the issue of women’s ordination, certainly a lot of women and not a few men feel that it is; however, it may be that their view of justice is skewed and that the matter reeks of justice, as opposed to injustice, because this is a matter of Divine Revelation and doctrine, not a matter of discipline.

I know of nothing in the Gospels that says the Church has the right and duty to make unjust disciplinary rules. And I think that history is repleate with injustices worked in the Church’s name, or by the Church. It also may well be that a disciplinary rule is just in one circumstance (e.g. as a means of resolving an issue such as misconduct); but it is also easy for disciplinary rules to take on a life of their own, as if they are proper in and of themselves as opposed to being written to address specific issues. There was a time in our history when prominent Church members were known to have concubines. That, I think we could all agree, is a tad bit over the edge, although it appears to still be a popular activity in members of the laity in Europe, perhaps to a greater degree than in the US.

Part of what I am trying to get at is the issue that the language and defense of celibacy in the Roman rite is written in a way that leaves one to ask questions about the reality of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and the legitimacy of married clergy in the Roman rite re: converts. It not ony amazes me but pains me to hear comments made by no less than Cardinals which in essence ignore or treat the Eastern rites as a very minor ancillary at best. One can exercise hubris without necessarily being aware of it at all. It is, nonetheless, hubris. I am not suggesting that all disciplinary rules need to be in lockstep and identical. I am still waiting to hear, after 45 years of hearing the “talk”, why the Roman rite insists on celibacy as mandatory, except when it isn’t.

It may well be that the loosening of the rule that JP2 did, in allowing converts to be ordained, is the beggining of a slow process heading towards allowing married men to be ordained in the Roman rite. I am not necessarily well known for patience.

My initial reaction to that is “here we go again with clericalism”. Maybe that is not a fair reaction (and I do not suggest that you are promoting it, but rather that I think you clearly identify their refusal to address the issue). Again, perhaps justice is not the correct term; but I think that disciplines normally need to have a rational reasoning behind them. The issue of M.Div does; Father Casey is a good example. The issue of women being ordainded does; Revelation and doctrine support the issue (or rather, are the issue).

And to that I would add that a number of issues the Church has changed position on in its history have been from bottom up, not top down. It may well be that the work is being done, but slowly.

Having worked directly with our deacon, and our prior deacon, yes maybe no. They are two distinctly different vocations; started out differently, and with the reinstitution of the permanent diaconate, are still different. I would not be the least bit shocked if I found that some of our permanent deacons, should the rule be changed, might want to be ordained. However, if they have used this as a back door to being in line to be ordained should th4e rules change, I would submit that is at very best a poor excuse to be ordained deacon.

While the deacon is the one to read the Gospel at a Mass in which he serves, he certainly is not the one administering the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconcilliation, Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick. He can witness marriages, and baptize; but he does not administer the sacrament of marriage any more than the priest does, and in an emergency anyone, including an atheist, can baptize. Being called to administer sacraments is a completely different vocation than being called to serve the bishop in whatever capacity the bishop should so choose (which may well not be working in and for a parish). They are not psuedo priests (in spite of the fact that ll too many in our parish address our deacon as “Father”).

And who knows; maybe the reinstitution of the deaconate is a step in releaving the impression that one cannot be married and serve the Church in any extensive capacity.

A clarification on Fr. Solanus Casey’s case . . . I don’t know about other orders, but I know my own religious family. Among Franciscans, the priesthood is not central to our way of life. While it is not discouraged, we do not recruit men to be priests, we recruit men to be brothers. So that any ordained friar is a brother with no special recognition or special place in the community. His priesthood is really for the salvation of his soul and the laity to whom he ministers. It does not add or dilute from his Franciscan vocation, though we consider it a gift to have brothers who are called to be priests.

That being said, the reason that we have ordained priests who do not have the academic degree (M.Div.) is because we are a lay order. As long as we follow the minimal requirements of training for ordination, as set forth in canon law, our superiors may call any of our brothers to be ordained priests. Many of our friars get the degree, but it is not a requirement of the order. The order decides who has a calling to be a priest, teacher, doctor, gardner, cook, lawyer, etc. Through history, the Franciscan family has ordained many men without the degree. Fr. Solanus was just one of them.

The reason that he had restrictions placed on him was not because he did not have the degree, at that time, none of our friars had the degree. It was because he failed his examinations in Latin and German. Those were requirements that the order, not the Church, had for brother-priests to preach. Solanus had to be tutored in English, because he could not read the German and Latin theology texts. Still today, most of our friars around the world do not have an M.Div., MA, M.R.E, or STL. That’s more common in the USA.

The only ones who must have a Master’s Degree or a technical degree/certificate in some other field are our lay brothers. Our brother priests must meet the Church’s minimum requirements of training. In the USA we usually follow the USCCB. But until very recently, we did not require the actual degree, just the courses. Today, the degree requirement depends on the major superior of the province and the resources available.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[eucharisteo]

Having worked directly with our deacon, and our prior deacon, yes maybe no. They are two distinctly different vocations; started out differently, and with the reinstitution of the permanent diaconate, are still different. I would not be the least bit shocked if I found that some of our permanent deacons, should the rule be changed, might want to be ordained. However, if they have used this as a back door to being in line to be ordained should th4e rules change, I would submit that is at very best a poor excuse to be ordained deacon.

While the deacon is the one to read the Gospel at a Mass in which he serves, he certainly is not the one administering the sacraments of Eucharist, Reconcilliation, Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick. He can witness marriages, and baptize; but he does not administer the sacrament of marriage any more than the priest does, and in an emergency anyone, including an atheist, can baptize. Being called to administer sacraments is a completely different vocation than being called to serve the bishop in whatever capacity the bishop should so choose (which may well not be working in and for a parish). They are not psuedo priests (in spite of the fact that ll too many in our parish address our deacon as “Father”).

And who knows; maybe the reinstitution of the deaconate is a step in releaving the impression that one cannot be married and serve the Church in any extensive capacity.

I agree about the first comment, that if a deacon is using his vocation as a first come first serve back door to getting to the priesthood, he’s wrong and it is an abuse.

However, you implied if not outright said that he is not the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. That is out right without a doubt in my mind having read the documents reinstating the office. He and the priest are the only ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. We often hear the term “eucharistic ministers” are needed for volunteering or in reference to them. This too is an abuse and not proper. We are discouraged from using these terms, yet everyone does and sometimes I find myself so tongue tied trying to say extraordinary minister of holy communion quick enough I end up saying it the wrong way just to convey the message more smoothly. But the deacon is along side the priest and bishop the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. A priest can confirm so as long as the bishop gives him the faculties to do so. I often wonder if a bishop could give a deacon to do the same things sometimes. I’ve never heard of it, but it is interesting to ask.

 

[mercer87]

I agree about the first comment, that if a deacon is using his vocation as a first come first serve back door to getting to the priesthood, he’s wrong and it is an abuse.

However, you implied if not outright said that he is not the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. That is out right without a doubt in my mind having read the documents reinstating the office. He and the priest are the only ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. We often hear the term “eucharistic ministers” are needed for volunteering or in reference to them. This too is an abuse and not proper. We are discouraged from using these terms, yet everyone does and sometimes I find myself so tongue tied trying to say extraordinary minister of holy communion quick enough I end up saying it the wrong way just to convey the message more smoothly. But the deacon is along side the priest and bishop the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. A priest can confirm so as long as the bishop gives him the faculties to do so. I often wonder if a bishop could give a deacon to do the same things sometimes. I’ve never heard of it, but it is interesting to ask.

The point is that a deacon cannot consecrate the Eucharist and preside at the Mass, and therefore is dependent on a priest to administer the Eucharist. He is the ordinary minister of the Precious Blood, but again, he can’t consecrate it. A deacon can’t ever give Confirmation, if I am not mistaken. Deacons can only give Baptism with full ceremony, as administering Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are reserved for higher orders, as well as the consecration of the Eucharist, and Matrimony is given by the couple to each other and is witnessed by a clergyman (be it a deacon or priest). However, if a couple wishes to have their wedding within a Mass, they must have a priest.

 

[eucharisteo]

The point is that a deacon cannot consecrate the Eucharist and preside at the Mass, and therefore is dependent on a priest to administer the Eucharist. He is the ordinary minister of the Precious Blood, but again, he can’t consecrate it. A deacon can’t ever give Confirmation, if I am not mistaken. Deacons can only give Baptism with full ceremony, as administering Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are reserved for higher orders, as well as the consecration of the Eucharist, and Matrimony is given by the couple to each other and is witnessed by a clergyman (be it a deacon or priest). However, if a couple wishes to have their wedding within a Mass, they must have a priest.

You mean when I was in the Church of Christ my words of consecration were not valid . Oh my gosh what have I done? Oh, that’s right they believe in a symbolic body and blood. Yes, I know what your say is true. It’s interesting that women often think they can be ordained deacons or priests. I found a woman who argued for the sake of ordained deacons at a class required for deacons to attend prior to being accepted to the diaconate program. She didn’t like my response and probably looking for me with a frying pan in her hand now. But I was merely quoting church fathers because of the way the priest let it stand out there as if it’s something the bishops are thinking about allowing. I’d like to take that frying pan over his head since that’s the only means of have of exorcising demons from anyone. After i stopped and confronted him openly he finally admitted that he doesn’t know anything enough about it to say one way or the other. I probably sealed my fate at never being allowed to the diacoante. But at least I’ll continue to fight for the faith and not the lies. God’s will be done. This is exactly why I wanted to become an Orthodox Christian in the first place. But I believe that my pride might be hindering me from accepting the realy of a messed up hierarchy. Look at areonism, in the early church. I heard/read that the overwhelming majority of 70% I believe accepted it. But later it was rooted out with orthodox teachings about the nature of Christ, the hypostatic union - Christ is fully God and fully man.

 

[JReducation]

As far as deacons go the sacraments that they validly preside at are baptism and marriage. They are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. A deacon cannot confirm, even in the case of the Easter Vigil when the new Catholics are received into the Church. The priest can confirm at the Easter Vigil without permission from the bishop. It is understood that confirmation is part of the Rite of Initiation. A deacon also presides at fenerals, but this is not a sacrament. When a marriage takes place within a mass, the deacon can be the witness to the marriage, if the couple asks, but the pastor must approve. Normally, the higher ranking order takes presedence. In some dioceses, even the pastor cannot grant this request. It must come from the Chancery. I have seen it happen in one case where there was a wedding within a mass and the deacon witnessed the marrriage rite, because it was his daughter’s wedding. I’m guessing here that the permission is given on a case by case basis. Ordinarilly, a marriage witnessed by a deacon is outside of the mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[eucharisteo]

I met a man that said he was confirmed as an infant. He is Catholic and said nothing ab out being an eastern catholic. This would be more sensible to me if we returned to it. The Lord knows we need all the graces we can get in the wretched world.

 

[otjm]

I agree about the first comment, that if a deacon is using his vocation as a first come first serve back door to getting to the priesthood, he’s wrong and it is an abuse.

However, you implied if not outright said that he is not the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. That is out right without a doubt in my mind having read the documents reinstating the office. He and the priest are the only ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. We often hear the term “eucharistic ministers” are needed for volunteering or in reference to them. This too is an abuse and not proper. We are discouraged from using these terms, yet everyone does and sometimes I find myself so tongue tied trying to say extraordinary minister of holy communion quick enough I end up saying it the wrong way just to convey the message more smoothly. But the deacon is along side the priest and bishop the ordinary minister of the Eucharist. A priest can confirm so as long as the bishop gives him the faculties to do so. I often wonder if a bishop could give a deacon to do the same things sometimes. I’ve never heard of it, but it is interesting to ask.

No, no implications at all. Just wasn’t on the radar as far as the discussion about married priests. At least in the US, according to the GIRM, the deacon is the ordinary minister of the Cup, specifically, should it be offered. But it seems written in such a way that it is not exclusive.

And from what little I know, it is my understanding that the confirmation cannot be delegated, and more than the bishop could delegate the deacon to say Mass if a parish lacked a priest. Someone else may know better or more specifically.

 

[JReducation]

No, no implications at all. Just wasn’t on the radar as far as the discussion about married priests. At least in the US, according to the GIRM, the deacon is the ordinary minister of the Cup, specifically, should it be offered. But it seems written in such a way that it is not exclusive.

And from what little I know, it is my understanding that the confirmation cannot be delegated, and more than the bishop could delegate the deacon to say Mass if a parish lacked a priest. Someone else may know better or more specifically.

The presider at the Easter Vigil, if he is receiving catechumens into the Church has the power and authority to confirm. If the catechumen is an adult, the three sacraments of intiation are administered at the same time by the presiding priest. He does not need permission to confirm, nor does he need to be a bishop. Even if the priest is suspended or not in full communion with the Church for whatever reason, he does not need faculties to confirm at the Easter Vigil. This is granted by the Church. The sacraments of initiation are valid and licit when administered by a priest at the Easter Vigil.

On another subject, in mission countries, where there is a shortage of bishops and travel is a problem, the bishop usually makes a pastoral visit less frequently that our bishops do. Because of the high mortality rate in these countries, many bishops will confirm children and infants when they make their pastoral visit to remote communities. In some countries this custom has remained in practice, even when the need is no longer present. But this is very rare.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

The presider at the Easter Vigil, if he is receiving catechumens into the Church has the power and authority to confirm. If the catechumen is an adult, the three sacraments of intiation are administered at the same time by the presiding priest. He does not need permission to confirm, nor does he need to be a bishop. Even if the priest is suspended or not in full communion with the Church for whatever reason, he does not need faculties to confirm at the Easter Vigil. This is granted by the Church. The sacraments of initiation are valid and licit when administered by a priest at the Easter Vigil.

On another subject, in mission countries, where there is a shortage of bishops and travel is a problem, the bishop usually makes a pastoral visit less frequently that our bishops do. Because of the high mortality rate in these countries, many bishops will confirm children and infants when they make their pastoral visit to remote communities. In some countries this custom has remained in practice, even when the need is no longer present. But this is very rare.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

(sigh) I was speaking of delegating it to a deacon. Obviously I was a tad bit terse.

 

[JReducation]

(sigh) I was speaking of delegating it to a deacon. Obviously I was a tad bit terse.

I sincerely apologize. I did not understand that you were speaking about a deacon confirming. No, that cannot be done. Even a priest can only confirm at the Easter Vigil, as I have explained. There are special cases when a bishop has no auxiliary bishops and may delegate a priest to perform confirmations. The logic behind it is that the sacrament of Confirmation is part of the rite of Christian initiation. Therefore, the bishop can delegate the rite of Christian initiation, if need be.

I’m sorry that I became confused.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mercer87]

So if I understand correctly, this is the sacramental allowance of a deacon:

Baptism: Yes
Eucharist: Can distribute, but not consecrate
Confirmation: No
Reconciliation: No
Anointing of the Sick: No
Matrimony: Can witness outside of Mass and with permission
Holy Orders: No

Is this right?

 

[JReducation]

So if I understand correctly, this is the sacramental allowance of a deacon:

Baptism: Yes
Eucharist: Can distribute, but not consecrate
Confirmation: No
Reconciliation: No
Anointing of the Sick: No
Matrimony: Can witness outside of Mass and with permission
Holy Orders: No

Is this right?

Matrimony outside of mass. In mass with the permission of either the presiding priest or the pastor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF