The four minor orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter Restless_Heart_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t the subdiaconate still fully functioning in the Eastern Catholic Churches?
  • My guess is that a married man can be ordained(?) as a subdeacon, but a subdeacon can’t get married. I look for clarification. Is “ordained” the right word?
  • Do the Eastern Catholic Churches still utilize the 4 minor orders?
  • I assume an Eastern Catholic Subdeacon would be recognized as a Subdeacon anywhere in the Catholic Church, though this role would seem to apply only in liturgy. A deacon has a role in liturgy, and in other areas, for instance serving the widows in the Acts of the Apostles. My understanding is that the subdeacon role, like the 4 minor orders, refers “only” to the liturgical life of the church. I look for correction on this matter. (This is why I love CAF).
  • Are there any “permanent subdeacons” in Eastern Catholic Churches?
 
commenter said:
Isn’t the subdiaconate still fully functioning in the Eastern Catholic Churches?
  • My guess is that a married man can be ordained(?) as a subdeacon, but a subdeacon can’t get married. I look for clarification. Is “ordained” the right word?
  • Do the Eastern Catholic Churches still utilize the 4 minor orders?
  • I assume an Eastern Catholic Subdeacon would be recognized as a Subdeacon anywhere in the Catholic Church, though this role would seem to apply only in liturgy. A deacon has a role in liturgy, and in other areas, for instance serving the widows in the Acts of the Apostles. My understanding is that the subdeacon role, like the 4 minor orders, refers “only” to the liturgical life of the church. I look for correction on this matter. (This is why I love CAF).
  • Are there any “permanent subdeacons” in Eastern Catholic Churches?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes and yes. The ranks of clergy from reader to priest can all be fulfilled by married men. Bishops are taken from monastic life, ergo they’re celibate.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that you’ve confused theology and dogma again, unless you can say exactly which doctrine concerning Holy Orders that poster, or my own humble self, or anyone else is denying. If we be not deniers of doctrine, but only holders of a theology different from the dominent one - and thereby suggesting that a certsin discarded set of symbols ought to be restored - then we may be flamboyantly arrogant, noxiously rude, and incessantly annoying, but not necessarily against the magisterium (assuming, of course, that you weren’t just informing us of your deferential attitude for purely conversational reasons). But then, you are the one who knows who is a deferer and who is not…

In any case, that the minor orders are of ecclesial institution is obvious - but to imply that all things which are not doctrine are indiscriminately changeable is too simplistic (and leads to insanity in 20% of patients over the age of 50). The Credo, for example, has been in the Mass of the Western Church for a bare 1002 years. Does that mean that it is indifferent whether it be in the Mass or no? Considering the historical connection which the recitation of creed has with the offering of a sacrifice (see, for example, the ‘‘my father was a wandering Aramean’’ hoopla in Dt. 26:3-15), to delete the Credo from the Mass would necessarily weaken the connection of the Mass to its central idea - that of sacrifice. The question is then: should the Mass be thought of as a sacrifice or not? If one is a good boy, he says yes, and therefore is more likely to say that the Credo ought to remain in the Mass in perpetuity. If one is an imp, he would say the Credo ought to go.

But, if you grant to poor little me the possibility that changes in non-dogma have real positive or negative effects in the Church, then I’m afraid you may not hide behind the bishops, as if they always (usually/hardly ever/virtually never) make smart decisions. The question is whether desolving the minor orders was a help or hindrance to the Latin Church and its proclamation of the gospel. No intellectual cop-outs, please.

As for me, in my non-consequential, (but qualified), opinion: the dissolution of the minor orders and the subdeaconate represent the replacement of a theology of historical import by an inferior theology marked by positivism. Yes, I can hear the yawns already, so I’ll stop here.
 
Nightwolf said:
Well, Your Deference, I’m afraid that you’ve confused theology and dogma again, unless you can say exactly which doctrine concerning Holy Orders that poster, or my own humble self, or anyone else is denying. If we be not deniers of doctrine, but only holders of a theology different from the dominent one - and thereby suggesting that a certsin discarded set of symbols ought to be restored - then we may be flamboyantly arrogant, noxiously rude, and incessantly annoying, but not necessarily against the magisterium (assuming, of course, that you weren’t just informing us of your deferential attitude for purely conversational reasons). But then, you are the one who knows who is a deferer and who is not…
Click to expand...
Deference to the Magisterium is not an inappropriate response…also concerning matters that are of discipline.

You may find that the qualities “flamboyantly arrogant, noxiously rude, and incessantly annoying” are not qualities that are endearing to moderators of the forum.
 
commenter said:
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.
Click to expand...
A Solemn High Mass or a Pontifical Solemn Mass, however relies on someone to play the role of a subdeacon, in the EF anyway. Many times it’s fulfilled by a priest or deacon but can anyone technically (who knows what to do) play this role now?
 
Restless_Heart said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this applies in Italy especially, where a server is referred to as “chierichetto” (little cleric).
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Deference to the Magisterium is not an inappropriate response…also concerning matters that are of discipline.

You may find that the qualities “flamboyantly arrogant, noxiously rude, and incessantly annoying” are not qualities that are endearing to moderators of the forum.
Click to expand...
Oh I do agree, Father. Unfortunately, I don’t take very seriously anything which a person says on an anonymous forum, which naturally includes me; hence, I’m not too concerned about being stoical. In any case, I’m mostly harmless. Now, while I sure am a very interesting topic of conversation…

I do think that there is too large a chasm between the concepts of doctrine and discipline. Far too many treat the one as gold to be hoarded, and the other as a feral cat: useful insofar as it gets rid of our pastoral rats, but up for extermination as soon as its perceived ‘‘usefulness’’ is lessened, or it proliferates too much.

My main philosophical problem with grading ‘‘discipline’’ according to utility is that we cannot escape that we are historical beings, and so our institutions are necessarily historical. Hence my example with the Credo: ‘‘discipline’’ or historized liturgical practice? Hypothetically removing the Credo (which is sometimes suggested in the interest of ecumenism) would not leave doctrine untouched as if practice is a coat that when removed, gives us a naked doctrine. To give it in Thomistic terms (sheesh, I’m an existentialist for crying out loud), the substance is what it is through the accidents, rather than above them or separated from them (which, I’ve noticed, is a common mistake people make when trying to understand thomistic metaphysics). The sacrifice of the Mass is found in its liturgical practices, not separate from them. But that means that some liturgical practices will be more explicit or better than others. I claim something similar regarding the current topic.

So, if ye have the patience to ‘‘put up with a little foolishness’’ as Paul says, you may find I am kneeling in filial subordination to the magisterium, even if I’m not as prissy as some. Besides, forums can be very dull places if everyone plays it safe.
 
Forgive my extended absence from the thread.

I wish to clarify that I know for a fact that women/girls in the lay ministries is a permitted exercise in the Church. I hope I didn’t make my opinions appear otherwise or seem that I am entirely against women in such positions.

I do admit I cannot agree with the notion of altar girls, mostly because I come from a parish where only boys are serving the altar at each Mass, plus a weekly Latin Mass. Many of these boys are also discerning a vocation to the priesthood as well. I just believe that a setting like that creates more fertile ground for vocations.

And let us keep this thread focused on this and the four minor orders. Thank you. 😃
 
commenter said:
Isn’t the subdiaconate still fully functioning in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Yes.
  • My guess is that a married man can be ordained(?) as a subdeacon, but a subdeacon can’t get married. I look for clarification. Is “ordained” the right word?
In the eastern Byzantine tradition, married men can be ordained to the subdiaconate. Some churches, like the Russian Orthodox Church (I know it is EO, not Eastern Rite) will not ordained one a subdeacon if the cleric intends to marry until they marry.
  • Do the Eastern Catholic Churches still utilize the 4 minor orders?
No. Only Reader (Chanter) and Subdeacon. Door keeper died out a long time ago.
  • I assume an Eastern Catholic Subdeacon would be recognized as a Subdeacon anywhere in the Catholic Church, though this role would seem to apply only in liturgy. A deacon has a role in liturgy, and in other areas, for instance serving the widows in the Acts of the Apostles. My understanding is that the subdeacon role, like the 4 minor orders, refers “only” to the liturgical life of the church. I look for correction on this matter. (This is why I love CAF).
Yes, the Eastern Catholic Subdeacon would only have as liturgical role, unless he has a calling outside the subdiaconate that would allow him to serve as a subdeacon. For example, a subdeacon who finished seminary or has a degree in counseling or other field who uses that in a church setting and is allowed to wear his cassock.
  • Are there any “permanent subdeacons” in Eastern Catholic Churches?
Click to expand...
Yes. I was one for a number of years until I was ordained a deacon.

Dn John Patterson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top