Ordination masses

[YoungTradCath]

At what point in an ordination mass does a deacon cease to be a deacon and cross over to the priestly realm? At what word or phrase or action of the bishop?

 

[jimrob]

The Rite of Ordination follows on immediately after the homily. At the end of the Rite (i.e. before the Offertory) the candidate is ordained. I suppose you’re now going to ask if the bishop dropped dead part of the way through the Rite of Ordination, after which word would it have been successful.

 

[Batfink]

Unless this is a trick question, it has to be when the bishop lays hands on the ordinand. He lays hands and prays silently to the Holy Spirit to come upon the candidate. This, in essence, is what ordination is.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We will be attending the ordination of the newest permanent deacons in our diocese in a couple of weeks. Really looking forward to it! I have been to priest ordinations before, but never thought about when was the exact moment since after the ordination rite, you move straight into the liturgy of the eucharist.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Rite of Ordination follows on immediately after the homily. At the end of the Rite (i.e. before the Offertory) the candidate is ordained. I suppose you’re now going to ask if the bishop dropped dead part of the way through the Rite of Ordination, after which word would it have been successful.

Yes, just for the record.

 

[TheMc]

Unless this is a trick question, it has to be when the bishop lays hands on the ordinand. He lays hands and prays silently to the Holy Spirit to come upon the candidate. This, in essence, is what ordination is.

Not so fast! The prayer of Ordination is after the laying on of hands. You need both the hands and the prayer. Now if the prayer of ordination was before, then yes, the laying on of hands would be the key indicator. But since it’s after, that’s not it.

 

[TheMc]

Yes, just for the record.

I’ve often wondered about this myself. I’ve assisted at and with many ordations, and listened to the prayer of ordination carefully, and I think it is this or some part of this:

*Almighty Father,
grant to this servant of yours the dignity of the priesthood.
Renew within him the Spirit of holiness.
*

The deaconate rite, however, is harder to see. I’m guessing it’s part of this:

*Lord, look with favor on this servant of yours, whom we now dedicate to the office of deacon, to minister at your holy altar.

Lord, send forth upon him the Holy Spirit, that he may be strengthened by the gift of your sevenfold grace to carry out faithfully the work of the ministry.*

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I frequently wonder why we, Latin Catholics, often ask such exacting questions about the Liturgy. As I, too, have asked similar questions, I included myself in the aforementioned ‘we’. Quite recently, I have felt myself being drawn to Eastern spirituality. It would be much better for our serenity, I believe, if we, like our Eastern brethren, accepted the sacraments as mysteries and accepted that the sacrament happens but to be less concerned about when.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I frequently wonder why we, Latin Catholics, often ask such exacting questions about the Liturgy. As I, too, have asked similar questions, I included myself in the aforementioned ‘we’. Quite recently, I have felt myself being drawn to Eastern spirituality. It would be much better for our serenity, I believe, if we, like our Eastern brethren, accepted the sacraments as mysteries and accepted that the sacrament happens but to be less concerned about when.

I don’t see why there is anything wrong with such questions. Such is the Roman way of thinking, if I’m not mistaken. It doesn’t hurt my faith, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt anyone else’s, either.

Eastern and Roman Catholicism are distinct entities already, and so I don’t see why we should adopt each other’s practices. That would stomp all over our patrimony, wouldn’t it?

 

[TheMc]

I don’t see why there is anything wrong with such questions. Such is the Roman way of thinking, if I’m not mistaken. It doesn’t hurt my faith, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt anyone else’s, either.

Eastern and Roman Catholicism are distinct entities already, and so I don’t see why we should adopt each other’s practices. That would stomp all over our patrimony, wouldn’t it?

I personally think these discussions are fine, for me at least. Maybe they are frustrating or hurtful for other, and in that case, they probably should opt-out on their on free will. But for many, including me, it’s actually quite enjoyable learning more about these things.

 

[TrueLight]

I frequently wonder why we, Latin Catholics, often ask such exacting questions about the Liturgy. As I, too, have asked similar questions, I included myself in the aforementioned ‘we’. Quite recently, I have felt myself being drawn to Eastern spirituality. It would be much better for our serenity, I believe, if we, like our Eastern brethren, accepted the sacraments as mysteries and accepted that the sacrament happens but to be less concerned about when.

Some people have the kind of intellect where they need to know details. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it can be laudable. Not everyone has that same type of mind, so if you don’t, then don’t look into details.

There is nothing wrong with curiosity. It is only wrong if it causes you undue angst.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t see why there is anything wrong with such questions. Such is the Roman way of thinking, if I’m not mistaken. It doesn’t hurt my faith, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt anyone else’s, either.

Eastern and Roman Catholicism are distinct entities already, and so I don’t see why we should adopt each other’s practices. That would stomp all over our patrimony, wouldn’t it?

I do get a bit tired of reading things like, “You Latins are so stuck on law. That’s why I’m Eastern.” And I’ve seen it said on CAF by more than one person. Yet if someone says one thing about the Eastern Rite or Orthodoxy, everything goes crazy.

It’s okay to advise not getting stuck on details without making a comparison between rites.

 

[DCNBILL]

Unless this is a trick question, it has to be when the bishop lays hands on the ordinand. He lays hands and prays silently to the Holy Spirit to come upon the candidate. This, in essence, is what ordination is.

This is what we were taught as well.

 

[TheMc]

This is what we were taught as well.

But what about the prayer of ordination? You need form and matter to validly confect valid sacraments. One without the other does nothing. By this standard, the prayer of ordination does nothing.

By the way, this is backed up by a very knowledgeable priest.

 

[DCNBILL]

But what about the prayer of ordination? You need form and matter to validly confect valid sacraments. One without the other does nothing.

By the way, this is backed up by a very knowledgeable priest.

It would seem that at least from this document you are right.

SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

1. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur.”

In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.” And the form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.”

“Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.”]

Note that the prayer following the laying on of hands is designated in the liturgical books as The Prayer of Consecration.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I don’t see anything wrong with questioning our obsession in the Latin Church with legalism. Likewise there is naught wrong in contrasting that with the praxis of our Eastern and Oriental brothers and sisters. This does not suggest that we ought to mix our patrimonies. It does not require a certain level of intellect to pose these questions nor does not posing them indicate any lack thereof. These types of questions do not distress me. I just wonder why we find the need to delve so deeply into the sacraments. In the end we can never know when exactly God imparts the graces of His sacraments.

 

[AJV]

At what point in an ordination mass does a deacon cease to be a deacon and cross over to the priestly realm? At what word or phrase or action of the bishop?

The Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI on the Rites of Ordination would be helpful to you in this regard. [Note that the English texts of the Rites of Ordination have been revised, and consequently the phrasing of the English translation provided in the link may not correspond to the currently used form]

The key parts:

By our supreme apostolic authority we decree and establish the following with regard to the matter and form in the conferring of each order:

In the ordination of deacons, the matter is the laying of the bishop’s hands on the individual candidates that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

Lord,
send forth upon them the Holy Spirit,
that they be strengthened
by the gift of your sevenfold grace
to carry out faithfully the work of the ministry.

In the ordination of presbyters, the matter is likewise the laying of the bishop’s hands on the individual candidates that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belongs to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

Almighty Father,
grant to these servants of yours
the dignity of the priesthood.
Renew within them the Spirit of holiness.
As co-workers with the order of bishops
may they be faithful to the ministry
that they receive from you, Lord God,
and be to others a model of right conduct.

Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands on the head of the bishop-elect by the consecrating bishops, or at least by the principal consecrator, that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

So now pour out upon this chosen one
that power which is from you,
the governing Spirit
whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ,
the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles,
who founded the Church in every place to be your temple
for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

 

[dochawk]

I do get a bit tired of reading things like, “You Latins are so stuck on law. That’s why I’m Eastern.” And I’ve seen it said on CAF by more than one person. Yet if someone says one thing about the Eastern Rite or Orthodoxy, everything goes crazy.

I didn’t comment when I read this yesterday. I closed this thread–and the next was arguing about whether a priest using last month’s phrasing at a single point in the Mass rendered it invalid . . .

It’s okay to advise not getting stuck on details without making a comparison between rites.

This isn’t rite, but east/west.

I spent eight year in Jesuit Schools, nearly joined them, and can scholasticate (scho lasticize? ) with the best. And then I hit a discussion asking abo it to the Eastern answer to “Does the bread and blood become the Body and Blood at point A, or B, or C?”–which is “yes.”

It was a major moment for me.

I didn’t run from the West; I love the Mass (offers with reverence) and Western theology. But so much of the time,when there is a difference, i find that the East is simply accepting truth rather than worrying about details. but it takes both lungs . . .

hawk

 

[japhy]

I don’t see why there is anything wrong with such questions. Such is the Roman way of thinking, if I’m not mistaken.

The specificity of your question is more like the scholastic way of thinking than a purely Roman way of thinking. Where in the early Church Fathers do you see them writing about the precise moment of consecration of the Eucharist, for example?

Eastern and Roman Catholicism are distinct entities already, and so I don’t see why we should adopt each other’s practices. That would stomp all over our patrimony, wouldn’t it?

Roman Catholicism didn’t spring full-grown from the head of Zeus in AD 33. Roman Catholicism (at least liturgically speaking) has benefited from the celebration of the Roman Rite in France, Spain, and elsewhere. To learn from and occasionally adopt or incorporate ideas from other traditions of Catholicism is probably healthy, so long as the particular patrimonies are not tossed aside or ultimately blended together into one big muddle.

 

[AJV]

Roman Catholicism didn’t spring full-grown from the head of Zeus in AD 33.

Of course it didn’t, silly! It sprung form the head of Christ. He went up, Roman Rite came down.