The four minor orders

[Restless_Heart_1]

Some institutions (FSSP, ICRSS, etc.) still practice these ceremonies, but how and why were the four minor orders (and subdiaconate) eliminated after 1970? I am aware of passages from post-Vatican II documents about “lay ministries,” but that is the extant of my understanding…

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Interested as well. Following.

 

[NPC]

The relevant document - which announced the changes - is Ministeria Quaedam by Pope Paul VI. You can find it HERE.

In it, he says that it seemed fitting to re-examine the conferring of the minor orders, saying that what had become obsolete would be removed and what was useful would be retained. The date for the new norms was 1 January, 1973.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Blessed Paul VI explained all the issues quite well in his motu proprio, Ministeria quaedam

*Certain ministries were established by the Church even in the most ancient times for the purpose of suitably giving worship to God and for offering service to the people of God according to their needs. By these ministries, the offices to be carried out in the liturgy and the practice of charity, deemed suitable to varying circumstances, were entrusted to the faithful. The conferring of these functions often took place by a special rite, in which, after God’s blessing had been implored, a Christian was established in a special class or rank for the fulfillment of some ecclesiastical function.

Some of these functions, which were more closely connected with the liturgical celebration, slowly came to be considered as a training in preparation for the reception of sacred orders. As a result, the offices of porter, reader, exorcist, and acolyte were called minor orders in the Latin Church in relation to the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood, which were called major orders. Generally, though not every where, these minor orders were reserved to those who received them as steps toward the priesthood.

Nevertheless, since the minor orders have not always been the same and many functions connected with them, as at present, have also been exercised by the laity, it seems fitting to reexamine this practice and to adapt it to contemporary needs. What is obsolete in these offices will thus be removed and what is useful retained; also anything new that is needed will be introduced and at the same time the requirements for candidates for holy orders will be established.

While Vatican Council II was in preparation, many bishops of the Church requested that the minor orders and subdiaconate be revised. Although the Council did not decree anything concerning this for the Latin Church, it stated certain principles for resolving the issue. There is no doubt that the norms laid down by the Council regarding the general and orderly reform of the liturgy [1] also include those areas that concern ministries in the liturgical assembly, so that the very arrangement of the celebration itself makes the Church stand out as being formed in a structure of different orders and ministries. [2] Thus Vatican Council II decreed that “in liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.” [3]

With this assertion is closely connected what was written a little earlier in the same Constitution: “The Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations called for by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’ (I Pt 2:9; see 2:4-5) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the reform and promotion of the liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else. For it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit and therefore pastors must zealously strive in all their pastoral work to achieve such participation by means of the necessary instruction.” [4]

Among the particular offices to be preserved and adapted to contemporary needs are those that are in a special way more closely connected with the ministries of the word and of the altar and that in the Latin Church are called the offices of reader and acolyte and the subdiaconate. It is fitting to preserve and adapt these in such a way, that from this time on there will be two offices: that of reader and that of acolyte, which will include the functions of the subdiaconate.

In addition to the offices universal in the Latin Church, the conferences of bishops may request others of the Apostolic See, if they judge the establishment of such offices in their region to be necessary or very useful because of special reasons. To these belong, for example, the ministries of porter, exorcist, catechist, [5] as well as others to be conferred on those who are dedicated to works of charity, where this ministry had not been assigned to deacons.

It is in accordance with the reality itself and with the contemporary outlook that the above-mentioned ministries should no longer be called minor orders; their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution. Only those who have received the diaconate, however, will be clerics in the true sense and will be so regarded. This arrangement will bring out more clearly the distinction between clergy and laity, between what is proper and reserved to the clergy and what can be entrusted to the laity. This will also bring out more clearly that mutuality by which “the universal priesthood of believers and the ministerial or hierarchic priesthood, though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, are nonetheless interrelated: each of these in its own special way is a sharing in the one priesthood of Christ.” [6]

After weighing every aspect of the question, seeking the opinion of experts, consulting with the conferences of bishops and taking their views into account, and after taking counsel with our esteemed brothers who are members of the congregations competent in this matter, by our apostolic authority we enact the following norms, amending-if and in so far as is necessary-provisions of the Codex Iuris Canonici now in force, and we promulgate them through this Motu Proprio.*

The document continues with specific mandates by the Pope.

 

[commenter]

Thank you to other posters for documentation.

My understanding is that as late as the 1800s, for instance, there were still some “lay” people admitted to minor orders, with no intention of going on to priesthood. I believe there was one cardinal who served as Vatican Secretary of State, for instance, but never a priest.

I wonder, if the Church now allows the FSSP, and perhaps other groups, to still utilize Minor Orders, are persons with those “orders” recognized as such outside their religious community? Are they recognized by their local diocese, other parishes, etc? For that matter, if a Subdeacon from SSPX leaves that community, and “enters” his local diocese would he be recognized as a Subdeacon still?

 

[Restless_Heart_1]

The relevant document - which announced the changes - is Ministeria Quaedam by Pope Paul VI. You can find it HERE.

In it, he says that it seemed fitting to re-examine the conferring of the minor orders, saying that what had become obsolete would be removed and what was useful would be retained. The date for the new norms was 1 January, 1973.

This document is very helpful and makes much sense. I think there is a great wealth of logic behind the main ideas Paul VI proposes.

It also makes me wonder why altar servettes exist because the document seems to assume no such thing would happen.

 

[Nightwolf]

I wonder, if the Church now allows the FSSP, and perhaps other groups, to still utilize Minor Orders, are persons with those “orders” recognized as such outside their religious community? Are they recognized by their local diocese, other parishes, etc? For that matter, if a Subdeacon from SSPX leaves that community, and “enters” his local diocese would he be recognized as a Subdeacon still?

No.
No.
From the SSPX, no. From the FSSP, yes.

Justification: Point 4 of the document by Paul VI, now cited by two posters, says that the functions of subdeacon are now fulfilled by the lector and acolyte. Ergo, if one has those ‘‘ministries,’’ then one may fulfill the roles of the subdeacon. But every person who goes through the ceremony to the subdiaconate in the old rite has already received both of those ministries. Therefore, if one is a subdiacon, one is also lector and acolyte.

AND YET, since neither the lector nor the acolyte are ordained to their offices, (since ordination confers the clerical state, and Paul joined the clerical state to the diaconate - points 1 and 12), there is no ontological change in the person who receives either ministry (that is an important word, so don’t confuse it; lector and acolyte are ministries not orders - point 2). If there is no ontological change, then it is only by ecclesial-approval that a lector is a lector. But the ceremonies of the SSPX do not have ecclesial-approval. The subdiaconate, no longer existing in the Roman-rite (point 4), has no more legal standing than any other non-thing (for more on non-things - particularly the riveting question as to whether the exploitation of non-things can be immoral, call 1-800…). This means…

• If one has legitamitely received the ministry of acolyte, whether by the ordinary or extraordinary ceremony (e.g. the ‘‘ordination’’ rite used by the fssp, which has been given legal recognition by the Cong. for Discipline of the Sacraments), then one may be recognized as a subdeacon. Subsequently continuing on in the fssp, and participating in the subdeaconate ceremony has no legal standing - neither to help nor hinder.*

Finally, an instituted acolyte may function as a subdeacon at Mass in the extraordinary form - again, because the functions of subdiacon are now fulfilled by lector and acolyte (point 4). The acolyte may, though, still be called a subdeacon if you really want to (still point 4).

 

[Chatter163]

The privilege of “ordaining” men to the minor orders and subdiaconate has been granted by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to the communities that use the 1962 liturgical books exclusively.

In practice, those ordained to the subdiaconate are styled “The Rev. Mr. ____,” though only very briefly, as diaconal ordination usually follows within weeks. Canonically, however, they are not clerics until they are ordained to the diaconate, in keeping with current canon law. So, no, a man ordained to the subdiaconate would not be regarded as one outside his community.

Our late FSSP parish organist, a layman, had been a priest of the Episcopal Church as a young man, and then came over to the Catholic Church. Naturally, he was received as a layman, but was pursuing Catholic holy orders, and was ordained to the subdiaconate. While he was a subdeacon for a few months in 1972, the document came out suppressing the subdiaconate. For whatever reasons, he never became a deacon, and spent the rest of his life (passed away in 2013) as a Catholic layman, and a concert organist of some renown.

 

[Nightwolf]

This document is very helpful and makes much sense. I think there is a great wealth of logic behind the main ideas Paul VI proposes.

I take my bold stand on an anonymous forum to disagree most heartily. If a great wealth of logic were amassed for the publication of this instruction, then I fear that wealth was tendered in Zyloti, rather than Pounds.

The pontifex meant well, but he was following the intellectual fad of his time: archeologize the first century, and that is being faithful to Tradition. And so, following several decades of maddeningly dull debates over whether the sub-diaconate is of divine institution, or of merely ecclesial institution, the idea was to strip the clerical-state of everything not directly connected to the first-century.

The problem with this reasoning is that it begs the question. What is traditional? 1970s answer: That which is from the first century. One is, then, truly in conformity to Tradition insofar as he pretends he lives in the first century.

But what of those who say that Tradition has to do with continuous history, rather than setting up Al’s First-Century Gold-Mine? Such a thesis would be dismissed out of hand, but only because it denies the basic premise of the justifying argument to do away with the minor orders and the sub-deaconate (that is, it says that Tradition is more a matter of lived history and continuity, rather than ''well, that’s how it was a long time ago!" - even, mind you, if that ‘‘long time ago’’ is the first century).

One of the oddities in the aftermath of the dissolution of the minor orders and subdiaconate is that we now have a theological chimera called the ‘‘Candidacy’’ of seminarians. This is usually held after the seminarian completes his philosophical training, slain at least one of his predecessors in ritual combat, and stands posed to go to major seminary. He announces his intention to go become a priest… as if that wasn’t clear from the fact that he has been in seminary for a few years already. That part is merely annoying; the fun part is that he now gets to wear clerical clothes in public - even though he’s not a cleric (point 1 of Paul VI’s instruction, already linked on this thread, connects the clerical state to the diaconate). Of course, Candidacy is supposed to symbolically replace first tonsure, and that rite, now abrogated by Paul VI, also permitted the seminarian to publically wear clerical clothes…

AND YET that rite (tonsure) made him a cleric.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of CAF, I your humble servant offer this as my first exhibit of the illogic of the abrogation of the minor orders: non-clerics permitted to dress like clerics in public.

It also makes me wonder why altar servettes exist because the document seems to assume no such thing would happen.

If you mean girls, you’re right; Paul does not envision altar girls.
If you mean altar servers in general, this instruction has not a thing to do with them. It is dealing only with those poor souls who would ever want to become instituted lectors or acolytes (whatever in Charles Dickens’ name ‘‘instituted’’ is supposed to be).

 

[Restless_Heart_1]

I take my bold stand on an anonymous forum to disagree most heartily. If a great wealth of logic were amassed for the publication of this instruction, then I fear that wealth was tendered in Zyloti, rather than Pounds.

The pontifex meant well, but he was following the intellectual fad of his time: archeologize the first century, and that is being faithful to Tradition. And so, following several decades of maddeningly dull debates over whether the sub-diaconate is of divine institution, or of merely ecclesial institution, the idea was to strip the clerical-state of everything not directly connected to the first-century.

The problem with this reasoning is that it begs the question. What is traditional? 1970s answer: That which is from the first century. One is, then, truly in conformity to Tradition insofar as he pretends he lives in the first century.

But what of those who say that Tradition has to do with continuous history, rather than setting up Al’s First-Century Gold-Mine? Such a thesis would be dismissed out of hand, but only because it denies the basic premise of the justifying argument to do away with the minor orders and the sub-deaconate (that is, it says that Tradition is more a matter of lived history and continuity, rather than ''well, that’s how it was a long time ago!" - even, mind you, if that ‘‘long time ago’’ is the first century).

One of the oddities in the aftermath of the dissolution of the minor orders and subdiaconate is that we now have a theological chimera called the ‘‘Candidacy’’ of seminarians. This is usually held after the seminarian completes his philosophical training, slain at least one of his predecessors in ritual combat, and stands posed to go to major seminary. He announces his intention to go become a priest… as if that wasn’t clear from the fact that he has been in seminary for a few years already. That part is merely annoying; the fun part is that he now gets to wear clerical clothes in public - even though he’s not a cleric (point 1 of Paul VI’s instruction, already linked on this thread, connects the clerical state to the diaconate). Of course, Candidacy is supposed to symbolically replace first tonsure, and that rite, now abrogated by Paul VI, also permitted the seminarian to publically wear clerical clothes…

AND YET that rite (tonsure) made him a cleric.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of CAF, I your humble servant offer this as my first exhibit of the illogic of the abrogation of the minor orders: non-clerics permitted to dress like clerics in public.

If you mean girls, you’re right; Paul does not envision altar girls.
If you mean altar servers in general, this instruction has not a thing to do with them. It is dealing only with those poor souls who would ever want to become instituted lectors or acolytes (whatever in Charles Dickens’ name ‘‘instituted’’ is supposed to be).

I will give my honest thought here. I really do think that the minor orders and subdiaconate should not have been tossed away. If anything, it is an outward display of the gradual consecration of a seminarian towards the major orders, and his eventual ordination to the sacred priesthood. Seminary formation must take place over a long period of time, to instill a true sense of holiness in to the man who may have a priestly vocation, and thus the four minor orders should be a natural part of that process. For those priestly fraternities, dioceses, etc., which actively offer TLM, such orders must be necessary for the successful execution of the Mass.

And yes, by altar servettes, I meant altar girls (I forget where I saw that term coined, but it amuses me ). Girls cannot be clerics, so they should not be permitted to assist at the Mass, period. This is really non-negotiable in nature.

 

[commenter]

I will give my honest thought here. I really do think that the minor orders and subdiaconate should not have been tossed away. If anything, it is an outward display of the gradual consecration of a seminarian towards the major orders, and his eventual ordination to the sacred priesthood. Seminary formation must take place over a long period of time, to instill a true sense of holiness in to the man who may have a priestly vocation, and thus the four minor orders should be a natural part of that process. For those priestly fraternities, dioceses, etc., which actively offer TLM, such orders must be necessary for the successful execution of the Mass.

And yes, by altar servettes, I meant altar girls (I forget where I saw that term coined, but it amuses me ). Girls cannot be clerics, so they should not be permitted to assist at the Mass, period. This is really non-negotiable in nature.

Just to play devil’s advocate, in some ways the near elimination of the minor orders might be useful, given the situation we are in now. There is much blurring of roles now, with laity acting like sorta clergy, and clergy acting like sorta laity.
I am uncomfortable with Lay Ecclesiastic Ministers, and other trends, as well as priests who want to considered an average Joe.

In an earlier, less confused time, like 1900, it may have been harmless to have lots of minor order “clerics” around, most of whom would not go on to priesthood, but some who would. Today, it is almost better to have a clean break - you are either a layperson or you are a deacon, priest, or bishop. Likewise, I agree with the trend also started by Pope Paul. He squeezed the then 14 grades of Monsiegneur down to 3 grades; now many bishops almost never nominate anyone for this grade, and I believe Pope Francis may be simplifying/reducing this grade as well. I predict soon it will be only for the diocesan chancellor, maybe the rector of a seminary.

Many laity still focus too much on this “rank”, as if this honorary ceremonial recognition was part of gradation of Holy Orders. Better to focus strictly on Deacon, Priest, and Bishop - the sacrament itself.

 

[Restless_Heart_1]

Just to play devil’s advocate, in some ways the near elimination of the minor orders might be useful, given the situation we are in now. There is much blurring of roles now, with laity acting like sorta clergy, and clergy acting like sorta laity.

And that is why I am in favor of the restoration of the four minor orders. It would the end of that “blurring of roles” you refer to (in my opinion), and be a reminder to the laity of the church the sacredness of the duties of the Church and church building (reading the scriptures, handling vessels, etc). The abundance of clerics (minor and major) at the altar during the Holy Mass, I believe, would help attract young boys to the altar and sharpen vocations to the priesthood significantly (especially if the girls are removed from altar service). That could be a great way to keep vocations coming.

I am uncomfortable with Lay Ecclesiastic Ministers, and other trends, as well as priests who want to considered an average Joe.

If by Lay Ecclesiastic Ministers you mean EMHC’s, your discomfort is well-meaning. They should only be dispensed in a genuine state of necessity when a priest or deacon cannot offer the Eucharist. And even at that, EMHC’s must be instructed in the sacredness of the host and the necessity of purification. The duty of distributing communion at Mass must be reserved to priest alone (and deacon).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And yes, by altar servettes, I meant altar girls (I forget where I saw that term coined, but it amuses me ). Girls cannot be clerics, so they should not be permitted to assist at the Mass, period. This is really non-negotiable in nature.

The supreme legislative authority in the Church has decreed that girls/women can fulfill both the roles of reading at the liturgy and of serving at the altar and, as is said in canon law, that is beyond appeal now.

Canon 333 §3. “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

A canonical dubium was submitted in petition to the Holy Father for clarification. The Holy Father made the clarification. He issued a decree, which was published by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

A future pope can change it, since it is discipline, but no one can say that it is outside the pope’s prerogative to legislate in favour of it. To be clear: a bishop may opt not to have it. If the diocesan bishop opts to allow it, a priest celebrating Mass may opt not to have it. But for those of us who do allow it, the lawfulness of a girl or woman doing these functions at the liturgy is without question.

Serving at the altar, even by an instituted acolyte who is a seminarian, is a lay function. It is simply not a clerical function…and it predominantly has not been.

Beyond these points, as a priest and theologian, I could not be more in agreement with the decree of Blessed Paul VI. It was a welcomed and needed clarification. Ordination in the Roman Church is now intrinsically tied to the Sacrament of Holy Order. There are no longer lesser ordinations. In the same way, the concept of a cleric is now intrinsically and clearly tied to being ordained and to having received the Sacrament of Holy Order.

The Holy Father, Blessed Paul VI, did the same thing at the next level up and this has been continued by his successors. At the head of a collective of the lay faithful should be a bishop. Not some other category of ecclesiastic. We had other mechanisms in the past…and they were seen in both the United States and Canada, for example, as throughout Europe. We had Abbots Nullius governing territories of the lay faithful and the secular clergy, with their own jurisdictions, in place of a bishop.

This sort of arrangement has slowly and progressively been suppressed…even at Monte Cassino itself. The United States lost its instance of this in the 1970s and Canada just a few years ago.

The secular and the lay faithful properly should be attached to a diocese, which is properly governed by a bishop, according to contemporary principles of a sound ecclesiology. We still have Vicars Apostolic and Prefects Apostolic but they operate in mission lands and only until the first moment when a diocese can be erected.

The present arrangements are much cleaner theologically. As we read in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, there are those who are lay, there are those who are consecrated (in some form of consecrated life) and there are those who are ordained. Seminarians, until they are ordained deacon, are to be counted as lay men. In the norm, portions of the People of God are under the care of Bishops, who are their shepherds.

As Blessed Paul VI decreed, the stable ministries of lector and acolyte can be imparted to lay men…those preparing for Holy Order must receive and exercise them. But also, as in antiquity, those who are not destined for Holy Order may receive them – and frankly, should. Those who exercise these ministries in an uninstituted fashion are doing so because an instituted minister is unavailable…it is a temporary solution of deputing someone to act in the absence of an instituted minister.

Fortunately, there are places that, albeit slowly, are implementing Ministeria quaedam as it concerns the stable ministries being given to lay men who are not candidates for Holy Order. This needs to be driven forward. As also the establishment of new stable ministries, also called for by Ministeria quaedam, according to the opportunities that could benefit the Particular Churches, diffused throughout the world.

From the perspective of theology, I hope, as things go forward, that clarification is made in attire so that clergy always have the opportunity to dress as clergy (when appropriate) and that those who are not clergy are able to be distinguished from those who are. This is still an evolving situation but one that ultimately should and needs to be addressed.

The duty of distributing communion at Mass must be reserved to priest alone (and deacon).

As a priest, I am most grateful that the Church has disposed otherwise and, as a priest, I gladly cooperate with those dispositions.

 

[otjm]

All of which reminds me of a cooking class being taught by a young woman. She told the story of how she learned to cook, and had learned so much from her mother.

The first time she was going to cook a roast, she called her mother, who told her to cut off three inches from the end.

“Why, mom?”

“That is what my mother, your grandmother, taught me. I think it helps the roast cook more quickly.”

Being in a hurry that day, she did as directed, but later had a chance to speak with her grandmother.

“Grandma, why did you teach Mom to cut off three inches from the roast before cooking?”

And Grandma replied, “Because her pot was too small for the roast.”

One poster seems to take umbrage at the idea that some tradition (with a small “t”) has been discarded after centuries of use. Just because the Church never sat down and examined the issue does not raise it up to a sacred level. It may or may not have been necessary, although most likely it was seen as important at some point. On the other hand, historically, we also have evidence that it took the Church a long time to sort through sacramental theology - and that may not be completed yet, if one were to look at the theology of Confirmation, which (only somewhat) jokingly has been called the sacrament in search of a theology, history having applied something like 5 to 7 variations to it (and none contradictory). So it is not as if the Church has “had it all together”; our understanding of the Gospels and what they teach us continues to grow.

A short look at paragraph 50 of Sacrosanctum Concillium might occasionally be beneficial; somewhere around 2,500 bishops from around the world participated in the preparation and adoption of that document. Some people now may not like it, but it is the will of the Church. And coupled with the review and additions to and deletions from our Liturgies , comes the review and additions to and deletions from things and processes attached to the Liturgies.

Minor orders was part of that process. And given that at least in some circumstances, the minor orders were processed through in fairly rapid fashion, there certainly was the appearance that they were of little or no significance any more.

 

[Chatter163]

We know that the subdiaconate already existed in 255, according to a letter by Pope Cornelius. To me, discarding something so ancient was a mistake.

 

[smead2942]

No.
No.
From the SSPX, no. From the FSSP, yes.

I disagree.
The Society of Saint Pius X is a valid (albeit suspended) fraternity with valid Holy Orders. If a bishop decided to admit a Society clergyman to his diocese, I don’t think anything is preventing him from doing so, for he is simply lifting the suspension.

 

[otjm]

I disagree.
The Society of Saint Pius X is a valid (albeit suspended) fraternity with valid Holy Orders. If a bishop decided to admit a Society clergyman to his diocese, I don’t think anything is preventing him from doing so, for he is simply lifting the suspension.

They were started as a valid group but went sideways something like 40 years ago.

As the suspension is from Rome, I don’t believe any bishop has the authority to life anything, but that is a topic for a different thread.

 

[Nightwolf]

I disagree.
The Society of Saint Pius X is a valid (albeit suspended) fraternity with valid Holy Orders. If a bishop decided to admit a Society clergyman to his diocese, I don’t think anything is preventing him from doing so, for he is simply lifting the suspension.

Ye are correct that the SSPX hath valid Orders. The problem is not in Holy Orders, but in legal force. The non-sacramental ceremonies of the SSPX do not have legal force because they are, as ye say, suspended. If the subdiaconate were one of holy orders, then sure, 'twould be valid.

Unfortunately for the Grand Old Society, the subdiaconate beith not recognized as one of the Holy Orders in the Latin Church, which means that the only way one may be a subdiacon is by having gone through a legally-binding ceremony that taketh a man and maketh of him an instituted acolyte (which now fulfills the role of the subdeacon). Now, as the debate of what an ‘‘instituted acolyte’’ really is would likely lead to mortal combat in St. Peter’s Square, the Church has been content to make it nothing at all.

Hence, it does not matter whether you disagree or not; a subdeacon in the SSPX will not be recognized as one outside the society, because the subdeaconate is no longer recognized, and one has to go through a liturgical ceremony in order to be knighted an instituted acolyte in order to function as that nonexistent thing which is called a subdeacon. But the ceremonies of the SSPX do not have legal standing, so no acolytes in the SSPX are instituted acolytes. And no instituted acolyte means no subdeacon.

 

[Nightwolf]

My poor gnostic mind…

On the other hand, historically, we also have evidence that it took the Church a long time to sort through sacramental theology - and that may not be completed yet, if one were to look at the theology of Confirmation, which (only somewhat) jokingly has been called the sacrament in search of a theology, history having applied something like 5 to 7 variations to it (and none contradictory). So it is not as if the Church has “had it all together”; our understanding of the Gospels and what they teach us continues to grow.

Hear me, hear me! Theology is not dogma; don’t confuse them. One of the most grating things I constantly see non-theologians theologizing about is that they see a theological system and mistake it for data when in fact it is theory. You referenced several variations of Confirmation, and said none are contradictory. Wrong! Absolutely incorrect. Just as there are six mathematical definitions that I’ve studied for the concept of infinity, all of them contradictory, a theology, as a theoretical explanation of doctrine, will contradict other theologies.

Example: Who is the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony? If you answered ‘‘the couple being married’’ give yourself a cookie. If you answered ‘‘the couple being married, or the priest doing the wedding’’ give yourself both a cookie and a slice of baklava because in at least some of the eastern rites, the priest is the minister. The difference is theological, not dogmatic; and yet, they aren’t interchangeable. In the Western Church, the couple is the minister; the priest is not. In the east, the priest is the minister; the couple is not. They contradict each other, and so they don’t coexist in the same rite’s catechesis. That’s theology.

Applied to the topic at hand, the current theology regarding the interaction between ordination, the clerical state, and Holy Orders really is different then it was before. But theology is not a blank slate: some theologies are better than others, just as some methods of any field are superior to others. Currently, you say, Confirmation is a sacrament looking for a theology. That would be because the theology it has adopted is inferior to what came before, meaning that the symbols of the rite are not adequately explained by its theory any longer. Very well, quoth I, the question must be whether the current theology regarding the interaction between ordination, the clerical state, and Holy Orders (plus a fun little guy named ''The Munera") is adequate.

AND YET one cannot forget the theology is not monolithic: several theologies are alive and breeding all the time, even in the same rite. There is a dominant theology right now, as there is in every age and, as in every age, that dominant theology believes itself the greatest thing since the invention of bread itself, but in ten years a new one will replace it. To quoth that great prophet, Stephen King, ‘‘There are other worlds than this.’’

Finally, I’d like to mention that the mother may very well have decided no longer to cut three inches off the roast, but if she continued to cook it at the same temperature for the same amount of time, the roast would not come out right. Change one thing, change everything.

 

[otjm]

My poor gnostic mind…

Hear me, hear me! Theology is not dogma; don’t confuse them.

Not to deflate your eloquence, but I sorta figured that out about 51 years ago when I was in college seminary (actually, I figured it out before then, but what is a few years among friends, right?).

I don’t have a dog in this fight; it matters not a smidgin to me whether minor orders were done away with, or modified, or reduced to installation, or retained in limited circumstances, or whatever it is that makes some people’s socks roll up and down.

Some people put form over substance, and whether that is due to assuming form is substance, or a mistake about what is substance and what is not doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference. The result seems to be the same; that those who confuse the two often cannot understand when changes are made.

One poster seems to argue that if a tradition has been on-going since somewhere around 250 to 300 AD, then it (apparently) has become immutable. That person is welcome to their supposition, but it is not, and has not been, the Church’s. Me - I prefer to defer to the Magisterium.