- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I cannot imagine how anyone could compile such a statistic (that 80% of calls for a priest go unanswered). How do they know? How do they know how many times such a request is made? I’m very skeptical about that statistic.If that statistic is correct, then that is very sad indeed.
Anyway, back to your original question…
Are you still asking about Confirmation, or is the question about Anointing? I’m having some difficulty sorting through everything.
S
shawnbm
Guest
Well, Father, the thread has gone off a bit from the original post about how priests can be permitted to confirm candidates and how that came to be into what joanm posted about how the orders of deacons and bishops (overseers) in Acts of the Apostles and the gradual formation and transformation of the priesthood to assist the bishops in celebrating the mass. She mentioned how she learnt that priests were granted more faculties over time, which prompted me to inquire as to whether that could theoretically occur with the diaconate (transitional or permanent); i.e. the Church might amplify or increase the number of faculties and, if so, in what way. It is purely a hypothetical in the theological framework of Sacred Orders through history. I find it an interesting topic now that the diaconate has been restored with the Second Vatican Council. My apologies if I contributed to causing any confusion. 
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I just wanted to make sure that if I contributed something to the conversation about Anointing, that I would not be distracting from your question.Well, Father, the thread has gone off a bit from the original post about how priests can be permitted to confirm candidates and how that came to be into what joanm posted about how the orders of deacons and bishops (overseers) in Acts of the Apostles and the gradual formation and transformation of the priesthood to assist the bishops in celebrating the mass. She mentioned how she learnt that priests were granted more faculties over time, which prompted me to inquire as to whether that could theoretically occur with the diaconate (transitional or permanent); i.e. the Church might amplify or increase the number of faculties and, if so, in what way. It is purely a hypothetical in the theological framework of Sacred Orders through history. I find it an interesting topic now that the diaconate has been restored with the Second Vatican Council. My apologies if I contributed to causing any confusion.
The canonical reasons (and the long history) for deacons not being the ministers of Anointing has been posted already, so I won’t repeat them. But what has not been posted yet (that I’ve seen) is the theological reason for it.
Anointing of the Sick is intricately linked to the Sacrament of Confession; so much so, that if Confession is unavailable (not enough time, or the person is unconscious, etc…) one of the effects of Anointing is that it brings about the forgiveness and absolution of the person. That is one of the principle reasons why deacons cannot anoint the sick—because in order to be a minister of Anointing, one must also be a minister of Confession.
So, while it might seem at first to be a matter of discipline that the Church limits Anointing to priests (a discipline which might be changed), when we get into the actual theology of the Sacrament of Anointing, we realize that the Church is not able to allow for any extra-ordinary ministers of Anointing (deacon or lay). Anointing always requires a priest, and this is not something that can be changed by a change in canon law.
S
shawnbm
Guest
Thank you, Father. Would that same logic apply to confirmation and the diaconate or is that somehow different since has the faculty of baptism? As I think about it, it would seem logical and theologically consistent that any cleric who has received holy orders could–if the Church decided to change the canon law–confirm young people with sacred oil blessed by the ordinary. I know priests can be the extraordinary minister of confirmation, but was there ever a time when only the bishop did this? If there were (I don’t know if there was) a time when priests did not confirm, but now do, could the same occur for the diaconate in theory as to confirmation? I mention this because baptism and confirmation are so closely tied together. I also know what the Church’s canon law says on this, but would this ever be a sacrament deacons might be able to be permitted to perform as an extraordinary minister over time? I know one poster who would say no and, indeed, I view it as a closed question at present. But another poster got me thinking about the evolution of faculties granted to different clergy.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s a good question. Might deacons confirm at some point in the future? Offhand, I’m not sure. My theological instincts are telling me “no” but it’s something I never actually thought about until this thread, so I don’t have a ready answer.
Before getting into the actual question directly, though, we have to keep in mind that there is a significant difference between seeing the priest as an extra-ordinary minister (of something reserved to the bishop) and the deacon as an extra-ordinary minister (of something reserved to a sacerdos).
The question of “what is a bishop?” was actually an open question throughout most of the Church’s history (odd as that might seem). There were 2 schools of thought. One saw the episcopacy as an order unto itself, the other saw the episcopacy as a being a priest-with-jurisdiction. It was not until Vatican II that the question was finally settled: the order of bishop is an order by itself, and a bishop is not (merely) a presbyter with the power of governance.
Since the notion of seeing a bishop as a priest-with-jurisdiction was the view accepted by St Thomas, it was the prevailing view in Catholic thought and practice–and it certainly pre-dates St Thomas. It was the most common. Remember though that it was not a settled matter until Vatican II determined that the view was not correct. The most obvious expression of that was that we used to refer to the ceremony of making a new bishop as a “consecration” (and some still do use the word) instead of an “ordination.” We now understand that a bishop must be ordained to that order, and not simply that a priest is promoted to the office.
That means that before Vatican II, when a presbyter was granted the faculties to perform some episcopal function, this was seen merely as a matter of discipline. All the priest needed was permission, and not the power of orders; since he “already had” all the power of orders by virtue of priestly ordination. Effectively, the thought was that there were only 2 orders in the Church: priest and deacon. Vatican II clarified that to state that there are 3 orders bishop, deacon, and priest. (I’m leaving out sub-deacon and the minor orders because they’re not relevant here).
All of that background is the reason why we cannot draw complete parallels between a deacon as extra-ordinary minister and a priest as extra-ordinary minister.
When we ask “what may a deacon do?” we must ask that within the context of seeing the diaconate as an order unto itself, with its own proper ministry. We’ve all heard Catholics say that a deacon is an “almost priest” or heard deacons described as “priests except that they cannot say Mass or hear confessions”; we know those are not accurate descriptions of the diaconate. We know they are not accurate, yet we continue to hear them said.
So, when we get back to the question “Can a deacon confirm?” we have to remember that the question is really about “is it the proper ministry of the deacon to confirm?” and not about “why can’t the Church just give them permission to confirm?”
As I wrote in my opening comments, my instincts are telling me “no” but I have to look into it a little more before I can provide anything substantive to support that.
S
shawnbm
Guest
Thank you, Father. It is a fascinating topic. I honestly did not know that the issue of whether bishops were a separate distinct order was not settled until fifty years ago! I have heard (and quite recently) that whereas deacons and priests are ordained by the bishop, bishops are consecrated (this is someone who has pre-Vatican II experience) so the idea of bishops as priests with jurisdiction is still prevalent today, as I believe you noted. I look forward to learning more from whatever source(s) you consult. Blessings
V
Vico
Guest
The canon law reads (CIC):
Can. 1008
By divine institution, some of the Christian faithful are marked with an indelible character and constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders. They are thus consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they may serve the People of God by a new and specific title;
Can. 1009 §1 The orders are the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate.
§2 They are conferred by the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration which the liturgical books prescribe for each grade.
§ 3 Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity.
S
shawnbm
Guest
Just bringing this back up because of what I read in one of those little “black books” I get from our DRE every year in my parish during Lent. In it, it explained that for most of Church history (I still find this utterly astounding) it was permitted and widespread that non-clergy could hear confessions and that it was not until the Council of Trent (!) that the Church indicated that sacramental confession could only be performed by a priest (or bishop, naturally). IF true, then does that mean deacons at one time heard confessions? If so, then were deacons considered–in those times–ordinary ministers of anointing of the sick as well (since confession and absolution is deemed part of the sacrament)? Might this permit–if the Order of Bishops were so inclined–additional development of the role of the ordained Order of Deacons to address pastoral issues in the worldwide Church? Thank you, Father, for your time in sharing answers to such inquiries. Blessings
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
That’s way off. I won’t say what I first had in mind or else I would end up having to go back to Confession again myself. I’ll let FrDavid96 provide more of an answer if he wants.
Dan
S
shawnbm
Guest
That is why I said I was astounded–seems off-base, but the little book is widely read and distributed by orthodox catholic folk around here.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Preface: Since it’s Lent, I haven’t had time to visit the boards here.
There are a few problems with those kinds of books—those that advocate for changing the roles of the clergy in various ways.
- They don’t give complete information. Did “anyone” hear confessions in the past? We have to admit yes. But that doesn’t mean that anyone imparted absolution. It’s a distinction they don’t always make. They make it sound very simple, but it’s much more complicated than that.
- There is such a thing as development of doctrine. Just because some issue might have been unsettled in the past, once it is settled and defined, there’s no going back. We can say that the earliest Christians did not have a complete understanding of the Trinity. We do now. We cannot go backwards and re-assess the Trinity. Neither can we go backwards and try to change which sacraments a particular ordained minister can perform. We can do it with other things (blessings previously reserved to bishops can now be done by priests) but those are different.
The other problem is the whole notion of “extra-ordinary minister” which has been, by any reasonable standard, much abused and misused in the post-Vatican II era. There is a reason why the Church ordains men to certain orders. We cannot just keep using (what has become, quite frankly, often a very thin excuse) the notion of extraordinary minister and calling it a “pastoral response.” If the Church is going to (attempt) extend all the functions of a priest to a deacon, then what’s the point of having deacons? The Diaconate is a ministry unto itself, with its own proper functions and values. If we were to turn the Diaconate into the Priesthood, then we would cease to have a Diaconate. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, but truly, if we make deacons into priests then we’ve essentially eliminated the Diaconate.
If the problem is too few priests, then the solution is more priests–not more extraordinary ministers. Maybe the Church needs to look at other solutions. Maybe.
The idea of the Church re-considering the role of the deacon to Anoint would not be “developing” the theology of the Diaconate, but instead would be contradicting what’s already established theology. It’s an important distinction.
S
shawnbm
Guest
Father, thank you so much for your thoughtful response. You bring up what I personally feel are valid and decisive. I can see that this issue is still closed and for good reason. I’m a big supporter of the idea that the diaconate has its role in the church, and it differs from that of the presbyteriate. I certainly agree that we should not do anything that could dilute or negatively affect the important role of our deacons. Thank you so very much, and many blessings Father.
Shawnbm
Shawnbm
- Status