Ordination and Faculties

[PbloPicasso]

Can anyone explain this to me. I’m confused as to how this happens… I understand ordination, just not which faculties are given to priests and deacons. Obviously a bishop receives all. So are all priests imparted with the faculties by written permission and by the very nature of their ordination already have the grace to perform confirmations for example. What about deacons. Do deacons ordination give them the grace to bless sacramentals? And is the only thing they really require is permission from the bishop? Is that the meaning of 'having the faculties"?

I have more questions but will wait for clarification on this. I’d prefer to receive the answer from a priest or deacon. I know there are some floating out there. Lay people are most welcome, I would just like verification and where to look this up.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can anyone explain this to me. I’m confused as to how this happens… I understand ordination, just not which faculties are given to priests and deacons. Obviously a bishop receives all. So are all priests imparted with the faculties by written permission and by the very nature of their ordination already have the grace to perform confirmations for example. What about deacons. Do deacons ordination give them the grace to bless sacramentals? And is the only thing they really require is permission from the bishop? Is that the meaning of 'having the faculties"?

I have more questions but will wait for clarification on this. I’d prefer to receive the answer from a priest or deacon. I know there are some floating out there. Lay people are most welcome, I would just like verification and where to look this up.

Actually priest do not have the faculties to perform confirmations by virtue of Ordination. Confirmation is ordinary to the Bishop alone and he has to explicitly delegate such authority to confirm to his priests.

Faculties is basically permission from the Church. Think of it as like a doctor. A doctor is a doctor once they receive their degree. But they cannot practice medicine without a license. That license is their faculty to practice medicine. Such as a priest is a priest through Ordination, but without faculties they do not have the right to practice a valid ministry nor represent the Church. So a priest cannot validly witness a marriage without faculties because witnessing a marriage is a function of the Church and without faculties the priest cannot be a witness for the Church. Same for confession.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Can anyone explain this to me. I’m confused as to how this happens… I understand ordination, just not which faculties are given to priests and deacons. Obviously a bishop receives all. So are all priests imparted with the faculties by written permission and by the very nature of their ordination already have the grace to perform confirmations for example. What about deacons. Do deacons ordination give them the grace to bless sacramentals? And is the only thing they really require is permission from the bishop? Is that the meaning of 'having the faculties"?

I have more questions but will wait for clarification on this. I’d prefer to receive the answer from a priest or deacon. I know there are some floating out there. Lay people are most welcome, I would just like verification and where to look this up.

Priests may do certain things ex officio because they have been ordained.

To do other things they need the permission of their ordinary. The permission given to priests by their ordinary is referred to as faculties. The ordinary usually grants the priest his faculties in a document called a pagella. If you put “pagella faculties” in to a search engine you’ll find the pagellas of a number of dioceses. This will give you an indication of what sort of things an ordinary gives his priests in faculties. You will find differences in them but most are quite similar. Many also state which faculty links to which Canon in the Code of Canon Law.

Some faculties are granted to priests by common law, i.e. by the Code of Canon Law. One presumes these are granted for the benefit of the faithful rather than as a privilege to the priest, e.g. although bishops are the ordinary ministers of Confirmation a priest can, by common law, confirm someone in danger of death. Likewise, a priest can even perform certain sacraments if he has had the faculty withdrawn by his ordinary. Again this is a pastoral measure to benefit the faithful. For example, if an ordinary withdraws from a priest the faculty to hear confessions that priest would still be able to hear the confession of a dying person, assuming no priest with faculties was available.

Normally, once a priest has been granted faculties he can exercise them anywhere. For example, if a priest has been granted faculties by the Bishop of X he can also use his faculties in the Diocese of Y. There are two exceptions to this. Either, the ordinary who grants the faculties limits where they can be carried out or if a priest is in the territory of another ordinary, that ordinary decides he cannot use his faculties. Going back to my last example, the Bishop of Y may prevent a priest from the Diocese of X from using his faculties in the Diocese of Y.

 

[PacoG]

But they cannot practice medicine without a license. That license is their faculty to practice medicine. Such as a priest is a priest through Ordination, but without faculties they do not have the right to practice a valid ministry nor represent the Church. So a priest cannot validly witness a marriage without faculties because witnessing a marriage is a function of the Church and without faculties the priest cannot be a witness for the Church. Same for confession.

Better analogy is the practice of law.The Anglo-American legal profession borrowed a lot from the Church in the way it is structured.

When I graduated law school, all I had was a diploma that said I graduated from law school. Then I took the bar exam, passed it. Then I crossed the bar and was sworn by the Supreme Court of Texas to practice law in the State of Texas. So carrying the analogy forward, I was ordained and given faculties in the State Courts of Texas.

Now let’s say I want to practice in another jurisdiction…let’s say New Mexico. I cannot waltz into New Mexico and appear in Court or start doing real estate closings. Different jurisdiction, different licensing authority. I either have to get license to practice law in New Mexico or get permission to appear temporarily (that process is called "appearing pro-hac vice) in that state’s courts.

Similarly, a seminarian graduate from seminary. Then he is ordained. He is then given permission to be a priest in his home diocese. If he wants to say Mass when he is on vacation in another diocese, help a classmate who wants to have a huge confession service in another diocese, or do a parish mission in a neighboring diocese or something of that sort, he has crossed into another jurisdiction and get has to get faculties.

 

[Vincent1984]

If he wants to say Mass when he is on vacation in another diocese, help a classmate who wants to have a huge confession service in another diocese, or do a parish mission in a neighboring diocese or something of that sort, he has crossed into another jurisdiction and get has to get faculties.

Except that the faculties to offer Mass and hear confessions are usually universal, and it would be rare for them to be geographically restricted. Another difference is that a priest forbidden from offering Mass can still do so validly but illicitly (that is, the bread and wine are still really transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ and offered to the Father). On the other hand, a priest with no faculties to hear confessions cannot give valid absolution even illicitly, so no sacramental absolution takes place (except where there is danger of death).

To go back to the OP, an illuminating difference between deacons and priests is given in the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1169:

§1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.
§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.
§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

While this strictly refers to blessings and sacramentals, not the Sacraments, it is perhaps illustrative of a general principle.

Also, I don’t think it’s quite correct to say that a bishop “receives all” faculties, for he cannot (licitly) ordain another bishop without a specific mandate from the Holy See.

 

[curlycool89]

If the OP wanted an example, here’s an example of written faculties for a priest.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually priest do not have the faculties to perform confirmations by virtue of Ordination. Confirmation is ordinary to the Bishop alone and he has to explicitly delegate such authority to confirm to his priests.

This is correct for the Latin Church, but in the Byzantine Churches the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest.

But then a deacon in the Latin Church may witness a marriage and baptize but he can not do so in the Byzantine Churches.

It is hard to talk about what is gained by “virtue of Ordination” with these differences.

 

[malphono]

This is correct for the Latin Church, but in the Byzantine Churches the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest.

Yes, indeed. But it’s interesting that in the Latin Church a priest (not a deacon) may be delegated by the bishop-Ordinary to confer the sacrament.

But then a deacon in the Latin Church may witness a marriage and baptize but he can not do so in the Byzantine Churches.

It is hard to talk about what is gained by “virtue of Ordination” with these differences.

The difference there is that in the East and Orient, the Church does far more than “witness” a marriage: she (the Church) confers the sacrament.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, indeed. But it’s interesting that in the Latin Church a priest (not a deacon) may be delegated by the bishop-Ordinary to confer the sacrament.

There is no question, East or West, that ordination renders a priest ontologically capable of conferrign the Sacrament, faculties are simply a question of if they have the bishop’s permission to do so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Better analogy is the practice of law.The Anglo-American legal profession borrowed a lot from the Church in the way it is structured.

When I graduated law school, all I had was a diploma that said I graduated from law school. Then I took the bar exam, passed it. Then I crossed the bar and was sworn by the Supreme Court of Texas to practice law in the State of Texas. So carrying the analogy forward, I was ordained and given faculties in the State Courts of Texas.

Now let’s say I want to practice in another jurisdiction…let’s say New Mexico. I cannot waltz into New Mexico and appear in Court or start doing real estate closings. Different jurisdiction, different licensing authority. I either have to get license to practice law in New Mexico or get permission to appear temporarily (that process is called "appearing pro-hac vice) in that state’s courts.

Similarly, a seminarian graduate from seminary. Then he is ordained. He is then given permission to be a priest in his home diocese. If he wants to say Mass when he is on vacation in another diocese, help a classmate who wants to have a huge confession service in another diocese, or do a parish mission in a neighboring diocese or something of that sort, he has crossed into another jurisdiction and get has to get faculties.

Isn’t the medical license the same thing? You can’t practice medicine in a State where you are not licensed? Or is the Medical License universal across the US?

But the good analogy about doctors is that if you’re on a plane in international waters and someone suffers a heart attack on a plane, a doctor can attend to that person even if he is not licensed to do it. The same for a priest, as long as he is a valid priest there are things he can do outside his jurisdiction in cases of emergency. A priest is given presumed faculties in cases of necessity, even laicized or schismatic priests can validly hear confessions in such cases.

 

[malphono]

There is no question, East or West, that ordination renders a priest ontologically capable of conferrign the Sacrament, faculties are simply a question of if they have the bishop’s permission to do so.

Oh yes, I know. But in the case of Confirmation in the Latin Church, it’s not really a matter of “faculties” as such, but rather one of specific delegation, since it is the bishop who is the “ordinary minister” of that sacrament. Anyway, the only reason I brought it up was simply in relational terms.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Except that the faculties to offer Mass and hear confessions are usually universal, and it would be rare for them to be geographically restricted. Another difference is that a priest forbidden from offering Mass can still do so validly but illicitly (that is, the bread and wine are still really transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ and offered to the Father). On the other hand, a priest with no faculties to hear confessions cannot give valid absolution even illicitly, so no sacramental absolution takes place (except where there is danger of death).

Actually no, its not universal. A priest cannot publicly say Mass without permission from the Local Ordinary. He may do so privately. Same with confessions, he cannot if he has no faculties to do so and such faculties is limited to the diocese of the Bishop who granted him faculties.

Bishops have universal faculties to hear confessions and they have this by right. If they are in someone else’s territory they would normally have the faulties to hear confessions but the Local Ordinary, for whatever reason, may choose to lift the faculties within his territory. And the Local Ordinary must explicitly state so, otherwise another Bishop retains his faculties.

To go back to the OP, an illuminating difference between deacons and priests is given in the Code of Canon Law:While this strictly refers to blessings and sacramentals, not the Sacraments, it is perhaps illustrative of a general principle.

Also, I don’t think it’s quite correct to say that a bishop “receives all” faculties, for he cannot (licitly) ordain another bishop without a specific mandate from the Holy See.

That is a matter of legality. A bishop still can ordain another bishop validly but Canon Law explicitly states that the lack of approval from the Pope warrants excommunication.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is correct for the Latin Church, but in the Byzantine Churches the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest.

But then a deacon in the Latin Church may witness a marriage and baptize but he can not do so in the Byzantine Churches.

It is hard to talk about what is gained by “virtue of Ordination” with these differences.

What I meant by “virtue of Ordination” is that the function (Confirmation) comes with his Ordination into a presbyter.

Thanks for the comparisson, I still have to get my head wrapped around the Eastern functions of the Ordained. One very interesting thing I noticed is how much a Deacon does during Divine Liturgy leading many of the prayers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I meant by “virtue of Ordination” is that the function (Confirmation) comes with his Ordination into a presbyter.

Thanks for the comparisson, I still have to get my head wrapped around the Eastern functions of the Ordained. One very interesting thing I noticed is how much a Deacon does during Divine Liturgy leading many of the prayers.

So if the Byzantine priest is the ordinary of confirmation then one can not say that it is not by “virtue of Ordination” in your usage of this term even though the West has said that the bishop is the ordinary of confirmation.

There are not two different priesthoods. They are two different disciplines.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Thank you very much guys (northern use as in male and female). I got better responses from you than I did my pastor, who has much less time on his hands than me. So bless his heart. He tried to explain what you guys took to explain over this thread. It makes a lot more sense to me now. But it does sound very complicated. I understand the license analogy with my engineering background as well as a former licensed insurance agent many years ago. That really helps a lot. Instead of an entire state its diocese.

What fascinates me most is the issue with bishops illicitly ordaining bishops or even priests without permission from Rome. I don’t understand how a schematic bishop could possibly justify excommunication, which I assume is a mortal sin, to get his priests and bishops. It’s a scary thing when you think about it.

I will continue to return to follow updates.

Thanks again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So if the Byzantine priest is the ordinary of confirmation then one can not say that it is not by “virtue of Ordination” in your usage of this term even though the West has said that the bishop is the ordinary of confirmation.

There are not two different priesthoods. They are two different disciplines.

But if a RC priest doesn’t receive the right to Confirm via his Ordination but an EC priest does, can we safely conclude that the faculty or right to Ordain is not attached to the Ordination to Presbyter, but subject to the laws of the Particular Church? Since faculties are indeed subject of laws.