Question about the Sacrament of Holy Orders

[TK421]

Another topic made me wonder this:

There are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. All of these have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, though to a different grade.

Would the Church theoretically ever be able to further distinguish this, such as a sub-category between a deacon and a priest, with a different set of responsibilities? Such as one who is able to anoint the sick and give absolution, but not celebrate the Mass?

 

[Brendan]

The Church does not have the authority to do so. All the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Church is simply the caretaker of what Christ, through the Apostles, have given to us.

The Church cannot add, nor subtract from that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Surely.

We already do that.

A vicar-general must be a priest. He has authority equivalent to a diocesan bishop (vicarious authority, of course).

Likewise, a priest can be the Ordinary of a personal prelature, such as an Anglican Ordinariate. He can do things that other priests cannot.

We used to have chor-bishops. Some of the Eastern Churches still have them and never stopped.

The office of Cardinal would be another example. They can do things that others cannot, and not just vote for a new pope.

A priest (presbyter) can be (many times are) given faculties to Confirm, which is a sacrament normally reserved to a bishop.

I could actually go on and on with examples here.

Protonotary Apostolic, Archpriest, Archdeacon, Subdeacon, etc. etc. etc.

Here is the key point though: some functions absolutely require ordination to that particular Order. We can never allow a man in a lesser order to do that which absolutely requires the character of a higher order. So we could never have a deacon who Anoints the sick sacramentally, nor a priest who ordains another priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Church does not have the authority to do so. All the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Church is simply the caretaker of what Christ, through the Apostles, have given to us.

The Church cannot add, nor subtract from that.

I am a priest (presbyter). I cannot administer Confirmation because that is a sacrament reserved to the bishop.

However, despite that, there are times when I can be given the faculties to Confirm.

Would we not say that is an example of the OPs question?

 

[Brendan]

Brendan:

The Church does not have the authority to do so. All the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Church is simply the caretaker of what Christ, through the Apostles, have given to us.

The Church cannot add, nor subtract from that.

I am a priest (presbyter). I cannot administer Confirmation because that is a sacrament reserved to the bishop.

However, despite that, there are times when I can be given the faculties to Confirm.

Would we not say that is an example of the OPs question?

I am not too sure that it does. My take on the OP was creating a new degree of Holy Orders, more than Diaconal but less than Sacerdotal.

In other words, a man whose ordination allows him to Anoint and Absolve, but lacks the Sacramental authority to confect the Eucharist, not simply a lack of faculties.

You can Confirm because the authority to do so is inate to Sacredotal oders, you simply lack the faculties to do so normatively.

If I understand the OP correctly, they are asking if the Church could establish a new degree of Holy Orders ( I’ll call it ‘UltraDeacon’) that can be granted faculties to Anoint and Absolve, but lacks Sacerdotal Orders.

Currently no bishop, not even the Pope, could grant a Deacon faculties to hear Confessions. The man in question would have to be Ordained to Sacerdotal Orders. But an ‘UtlraDeacon’ could be granted such faculties, but could not, even by the Pope, be granted faculties to say Mass. Again, the person would have to be Ordained to Sacerdotal Orders before such faculties could be granted.

Such a new degree of Holy Orders, in my understanding, would be outside the Authority of the Church

I could be mistaken in my understanding of the OP’s request though.

You may be correct that they are asking for a person in Sacerdotal Orders, but is simply denied faculties to say Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not too sure that it does. My take on the OP was creating a new degree of Holy Orders, more than Diaconal but less than Sacerdotal.

In other words, a man whose ordination allows him to Anoint and Absolve, but lacks the Sacramental authority to confect the Eucharist, not simply a lack of faculties.

I could be mistaken in my understanding of the OP’s request though.

I took it as being just one example–the deacon anointing.

The one example doesn’t work (as you well know). But that doesn’t exclude other possibilities.

Another one is the Maronite Diaconate. Maronite deacons (according to their own tradition) cannot proclaim the Gospel, only an Archdeacon can do so. Consequently, most Maronite deacons were quickly elevated to archdeacons—although I think they stopped that a few years ago.

I see archdeacons as an example of what the OP is asking.

Right now, deacons can only perform certain blessings. Might the Latin Church someday consider Archdeacons with additional faculties to bless? It’s not impossible.

See also my “key point” in my first post. Some acts absolutely require the character of a particular order; and that part is beyond the competence of the Church to change.

 

[TK421]

@Father:

The original topic that got me wondering about this was related to priestly vows of celibacy in the Latin church. There was also a poster who was attempting to say that the Church could theoretically appoint female deacons (his arguments didn’t seem to make any sense as that question is already settled within Tradition).

My understanding of what you’re saying is that a deacon cannot and would never be able to validly anoint the sick or absolve sins. That would be outside of the Church’s ability to change.

Could the Church theoretically have distinct orders within the priesthood (sacerdotal) where a married priest (or an unmarried priest who hasn’t made vows) would be granted the faculty to absolve sins and anoint the sick, but not celebrate the Mass? And that such priests could have a distinct pastoral role under the bishop? Or is it an “all or nothing” sort of thing, since priests can normally do anything except ordination, which is reserved to bishops.

 

[FrDavid96]

@Father:

The original topic that got me wondering about this was related to priestly vows of celibacy in the Latin church. There was also a poster who was attempting to say that the Church could theoretically appoint female deacons (his arguments didn’t seem to make any sense as that question is already settled within Tradition).

My understanding of what you’re saying is that a deacon cannot and would never be able to validly anoint the sick or absolve sins. That would be outside of the Church’s ability to change.

Could the Church theoretically have distinct orders within the priesthood (sacerdotal) where a married priest (or an unmarried priest who hasn’t made vows) would be granted the faculty to absolve sins and anoint the sick, but not celebrate the Mass? And that such priests could have a distinct pastoral role under the bishop? Or is it an “all or nothing” sort of thing, since priests can normally do anything except ordination, which is reserved to bishops.

Again, something similar (but not identical) to what you’re asking is already reality.

Although I haven’t heard the term in a few years actually applied, there is still the idea of a sacerdos simplex or a “simple priest.” These priests were ordained to say Mass, but not much more. They were not given faculties to preach or hear confessions (nor be pastors, etc). Ironically, the opposite of your example.

So, could such a thing be restored? Of course, yes. We did it before we can do it again.

I’ve actually heard legitimate completely serious suggestions made to bishops that the Church might want to consider ordaining older married men as sacerdos simplex. So what you suggest is not too far from what is already well-established (albeit abandoned) practice.

 

[TK421]

I guess I"m intuitively thinking that there would be more pastoral need for Anointing and Confessions than Mass. But I guess that depends on how many laity take advantage of it. I’m assuming many deacons already spend time visiting the sick & homebound, so having a “simple priest” be able to do it and Anoint as well seems advantageous. Although I realize not everything is about what is efficient.