Questions about Deacons

  • Thread starter Thread starter TommyWommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not so sure about the anointing. There is a story in the “To Save a thousand souls” book that tells about how a transitional deacon was in the rectory alone, and he got a call and he went to anoint them, and when the bishop learned about this he was shocked, because that is not apart of the ordination rite, so it was invalid.

It’s sort of like this, a man who left the priesthood is not suppose to use his priestly faculties. But if there is an emergency, he could anoint someone. But if there is an active priest around, the inactive one should not attempt it. It would be valid though.
 
FrIntervention said:
BTW…the U.S. Bishops have asked Rome to allow deacons to annoint, but Rome has not yet approved. Seems like they can annoint, but just aren’t allowed to at this point…
Click to expand...
Fr., This is the first I’ve heard of this request, would you have some information on this request, or a link for one to do some research about the request?

Thanks
 
FrIntervention said:
BTW…the U.S. Bishops have asked Rome to allow deacons to annoint, but Rome has not yet approved. Seems like they can annoint, but just aren’t allowed to at this point…
Click to expand...
A professor of mine was head of deacon formation for the USCCB and he made the same remark about a year ago.
 
FrIntervention said:
BTW…the U.S. Bishops have asked Rome to allow deacons to annoint, but Rome has not yet approved. Seems like they can annoint, but just aren’t allowed to at this point…
Click to expand...
Fr, it wasn’t that have not approved it yet, Rome rejected the request

Then Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter on the subject reiterating the Church’s teaching on the valid minister of this Sacrament. Trent and Florence both reiterated that the Minister of the Sacrament is the priest or bishop and they alone.

In addition is the exegisis on James 5
The Greek words of James’ Epistle (5: 14), which the Vulgate translates as “presbyteros Ecclesiae” in accordance with tradition, cannot be referring to the elders of the community in terms of age but to that specific category of the faithful who, through the imposition of hands, the Holy Spirit had ordained to tend the Church of God.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20050211_unzione-infermi_en.html

A Deacon, as we can all agree, is not ordained to the Presbyteriat, and therefore cannot be counted as being members of the specific category of the faithful to which James referred. The issue seems to be well closed.
 
Here is the Canon to which then Cardinal Ratzinger referred
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this Cause a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html
 
The issue can hardly be closed as long as the U.S. Bishops have a formal request for a change. It makes theological sense for deacons to minister the Sacrament of the Sick, and Rome could allow it…unless you think there are 9 sacraments, not 7…
 
FrIntervention said:
The issue can hardly be closed as long as the U.S. Bishops have a formal request for a change. It makes theological sense for deacons to minister the Sacrament of the Sick, and Rome could allow it…unless you think there are 9 sacraments, not 7…
Click to expand...
Fr., Pope Benedict said that the only valid ( note VALID) ministers are priests and bishops.

Perhaps you missed this part:
The doctrine which holds that the minister of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick “est omnis et solus sacerdos” enjoys such a degree of theological certainty that it must be described as a doctrine “definitive tenenda”. The Sacrament is not valid if a deacon or a layman attempts to administer it. Such an action would be a crime of simulation in the administration of a sacrament, to be penalized in accordance with can. 1379, CIC (cf. can. 1443, CCEO).
Click to expand...
The doctine is definitve tenenda, part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, that the Sacrament is not valid of offered by a Deacon or layman.

As to the "9 Sacraments"comment, could you explain that please?

In what way did I give the the impression that in holding Rome’s response as definitive would require the belief in 9 Sacraments?

And that such a determination is
 
FrIntervention said:
The issue can hardly be closed as long as the U.S. Bishops have a formal request for a change. It makes theological sense for deacons to minister the Sacrament of the Sick, and Rome could allow it…unless you think there are 9 sacraments, not 7…
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn’t make theological sense. The authority to forgive is in Christ, the priest is in the person of Christ. Deacons according to scripture and tradition have never been authorized to forgive sins. The annointing of the sick involves confession and absolution, I don’t have and will never have, that authority as a deacon.

I believe if Rome were to allow this major change, and the Holy See will not, it would water down the faith by watering down the priesthood. The priest is the minister of the Eucharist and absolution, not the deacon.

I hate to speak in opposition to you Father, but I have no choice. I do not see this changing, and I agree it should not change.

I too would love to know what you mean by 9 sacraments.
 
Holy Orders is a single sacrament, not 3. Each order has its own ministry (or job description, if you will). Unless each order is a separate sacrament the Church is free to modify the job description, which it has done in the past. Priests can confirm in certain circumstances, for example). The current discipline of the Church is to restrict the Sacrament of the Sick to priests…and the argument for keeping it that way is not unreasonable…but the U.S. Bishops are perfectly correct theologically in asking that this be changed. I am simply agreeing with the Bishops…
 
FrIntervention said:
Holy Orders is a single sacrament, not 3. Each order has its own ministry (or job description, if you will). Unless each order is a separate sacrament the Church is free to modify the job description, which it has done in the past. Priests can confirm in certain circumstances, for example). The current discipline of the Church is to restrict the Sacrament of the Sick to priests…and the argument for keeping it that way is not unreasonable…but the U.S. Bishops are perfectly correct theologically in asking that this be changed. I am simply agreeing with the Bishops…
Click to expand...
Correct, there is a single Sacrament, but, as Aquinas noted, there are powers distinct to each facet of the Sacrament.

A Deacon could never validly consecrate the Eucharist, for example, or be given faculties to absolve. The character of their reception of the Sacrment is such that they cannot ontologolically perform that function.

The function of consecration is only possible when the character of the Sacrerdotals Orders is imparted upon the soul. This is character is distinct from being a seperate sacrament, but rather from a single Sacrament that includes three distinct characters. THe character imparted to the recipient is contingent upon the specific prayers and intent of the Minister of the Sacrament.

Father, this is basic Aquinas. You should have covered that in your Sacramentology classes.

in addition, Father, I would like to see confirmation that the bishops of the US have not accepted the letter on the subject that then Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the bishops of the world in 2005.

My spirtual advisor is the secretary to Archbishop Vigneron. He seemed to be unaware of any request that the US bishops have send to Rome on the subject in the last several years.

So do you have any references on this request from the US bishops?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top