Memo,

Thank you for your comments, especially the part I have quoted above. This seems to confirm an opinion I offered earlier in this thread, namely that the issue of celibacy was directly related to the disdain of some traditionalist RC clergy for the "permanent" (i.e. non-celibate) diaconate.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Undoubtedly language was a major force behind that transformation. The clergy maintained the use of Latin, both liturgically and in official correspondence, legal documents, theological tracts and so forth. It might have been a very vulgar and debased Latin (my Ciceronian daughters laugh whenever they hear it), but it was indeed Latin. On the other hand, the people were already slouching into French, Italian and Spanish, to say nothing of English, German, Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Polish and Swedish. One reason the responses of the people in the Old Roman Rite are so terse and epigrammatic is the limited ability of the people, even in the sixth and seventh centuries, to understand and speak Latin.

Since the liturgy of the Western Church was now in a language incomprehensible to the common people, the liturgical role of the clergy became shrouded in mystery. A similar tendency towards clericalization in the East was mitigated by the continued use of a vernacular tongue. The Greek of the Liturgy might be antiquated and difficult for the common people, but it was still largely comprehensible (whether they understood the highfalutin' rhetorical excesses of the homilies is another matter, as Father Taft has pointed out). When the faith expanded into Slavic lands, liturgy and the Scriptures were translated into Slavonic, and a new written alphabet developed to support it. Because the people knew what the clergy were doing and saying, it was more difficult for the clergy to emerge as a distinct caste. It seems likely that that married priests also helped keep the clergy grounded (which was also the case in the West through the eleventh century; it is only after the imposition of mandatory celibacy that the Western clergy become a caste entirely apart).

Since virtually no one could really speak Latin, this made life more difficult for the acolytes. The "tricks" employed to teach the acolytes even the simplest responses are such that if I were to give some choice examples, no one would believe them!

Sometimes this even affected the clergy - and again, with some difficulty I refrain from giving examples.

Fr. Serge

This issue is unlikely to resolved until celibate permanent deacons become accepted in Catholicism. I think that having celibate men ordained to the permanent diaconate would cement the idea that the diaconate is a distinct vocation from priesthood, that men may have whether they are able to be priests or not. Until there are more celibates actively choosing the diaconate it will continue to be seen in some circles as a ministry for people who can't commit to celibacy rather than as an essential ministry of the church. Of course this perspective is totally wrong, but I have to say I know a few bishops and priests who view the permanent diaconate that way.

Celibate deacons are not a crazy idea - I know of five celibate (not monastic) deacons in Orthodoxy in Australia in three different jurisdictions. They are all valued as members of their parish clergy and in fact somewhat relied upon as they can often be available for services during the week when married clergy cannot. Not having children etc they are not as tied down to making a regular income.

When in my Catholic days I expressed a desire to be a deacon and celibate to boot, I was generally asked "why not be a priest?" and answers along the lines of "I don't have a vocation for it" were generally not accepted.

Hi,


Celibate permanent deacons are rare, yes, but not unheard of.

I know of at least one in our Archdiocese and this year's aspirancy class has two candidates who are not married (I am not sure if they are actually single or widowed or if they had ever been married).

I agree, celibate permanent deacons will challenge a good number of misconceptions that the Western Church is still dragging along about Holy Orders.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

All monastic deacons are celibate. And the canons of the Western Church in the 4-7th centuries seem to require all those ordained to higher orders, including the diaconate, be celibate whether monastic or not. This was reaffirmed when celibacy was finally imposed in the eleventh century, but by then the diaconate was considered merely an intermediate step on the cursus honorum. The current Latin discipline, allowing for married deacons, is therefore something of an innovation on their part.

But, as for allowing permanent secular celibate deacons, I think I have a problem with that, but only because I have a problem with celibates living outside of a monastic framework, period. I think a lot of mischief has resulted from that anomalous situation.

Just for clarification, current canons on the permanent secular diaconate allow ordination of celibate men to the permanent diaconate at 25 and married men at 35.

THis in itself is interesting and redolent of discrimination. Firstly, the permanent diaconate has a higher age for ordination than the transitional (I think the current age for transitional is 24, up from 23?), but secondly, the age requirement for married men is interesting, especially since in many cultures men are marrying around 30 which imposes it's own age requirement. My somewhat cynical hypothesis is that the higher age requirement exists to try and nab people for the priesthood and that the married age requirement is a concession.

I don't see any good reason why there should not be one age requirement for all deacons.

Perso

I think I should like to see the age for ordination to the presbyterate restored at least to that which is was in the patristic era (30), though perhaps it should be adjusted upward to account for our longer life expectancies. Remember that a thirty year old man in the fourth century would be bordering on middle age, at a time when most people did not make it to sixty. The implication, then, is the Church wanted men of intellectual and emotional maturity, who had seen something of the world and had a track record of stability, wisdom and good judgment. I would say that in today's world, we should definitely be looking at priests in their forties who have held some sort of real job in the world. As for deacons, the canons, to say nothing of scripture, indicate that these should be mature men as well, so perhaps the same age, minus a year or two, would suffice for them as well.

In the Orthodox church the age for priesthood is 30 and 25 for the diaconate. I think the two Hilarions (of New york & Sydney and of Tomsk) were the youngest Orthodox bishops, both in their mid 30s at ordination.

To my knowledge, there is no uniform age limit adhered to across the Orthodox Church as a whole. It is my understanding that 30 is the minimum age for a Bishop. In my diocese, all seminarians are required to have an accredited Bachelor's degree prior to entering a three year,full-time program. There are exceptions to that general rule within the discretion of the Bishop.

Hello,

The age requirement of 35 can easlily be dispensed. There is a practical reason for it: At 35, a married man is usually still raising young children and it is unwise fo the Church to offer these young parents an exuse not to devote themselves to that responsibility.

I am 38 years old, my youngest son is 11. God willing, at 39 I will be one of the (if not *the*) youngest deacons in the Archdiocese. I don't believe I could've started the formation program much earlier than when I was 34.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

Given that the deacon is ordained not unto the priesthood but unto the ministry [to the bishop] does this not establish a unique relationship between the bishop and each deacon singularly? Note that in the Roman form of ordination this is expressed ritually for only the bishop lays hands on the candidate for the diaconate as is the case for all the minor orders [instituted ministries] while at the ordination of a presbyter, not only the bishop but the other members of the college of presbyters likewise lay on hands. Furthermore,there is a corporate laying on of hands for the ordination of a bishop.

In each of these ordinations a uniquely different relationship is established. It is the relationship that determines one’s order in the Church. Each person in the Church is in one of the orders and only one order at any one time.

A bishop was at one time in the order of the baptized. His relationship with Christ and the other members of Christ’s Body, the Church, was determined by his place [order] in the baptized. When he was ordained a deacon, he maintained or kept the character received in baptism and chrismation but he was no longer numbered among the baptized laity. Having received the character of baptism and chrismation, he can never be baptized or chrismated again. The character seals the candidate and marks the candidate out in a definitive way and cannot be lost. According to the particular mystery [sacrament] the character conforms the candidate to Christ. A new ordination changes his relationship to his bishop, the presbyters, his fellow deacons, and to the laity. This new relationship brought with it a share in the apostolic mandate and ministry with particular obligations and functions especially in regards to his bishop.

Once ordained to the presbyterate, the former deacon no longer has the same relationship to his bishop or to the other members of the Church. He does not lose the character of the diaconate or the ability to do what he did as a deacon but he can no longer do the liturgical diaconal functions as a deacon for he is now really and truly a priest. He belongs to a different order, or as some would say a different rank [range] within the sacrament of holy order. Should not the priest always present himself as a priest? And should this not be especially true in the liturgical actions of the Church? For in the liturgy the Church should be truly what it is – the Body of Christ which manifests itself as the One Body but with diverse orders and ministries? There is One Spirit but many charismas.

The bishop should always be seen to be bishop. He should not disguise himself as a presbyter. Image that there are many bishops present but no presbyters or deacons or subdeacons, or readers or laity: thus, some of the bishops serve vested as bishops, some serve vested as priests, some vested as deacons, some vested as subdeacons, some vested as readers, and some attired as laity. Does this give an authentic, real and truthful manifestation of the Church? This would not be a problem if truth was not necessary. Who would know? As Fr. Serge has pointed out in the words of Patriarch Maximos IV, “God would know.” The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Church is united to the Holy Trinity. By grace the members of the Church share in the Trinitarian life. The Church’s liturgical life must manifest the truth about itself and the Trinity.

Given the considerable number of views this topic has received, I wonder if anyone has any more theological comments? They would be most welcome.

Can someone help me with the type of theological thinking found in the following?

It is taken from:

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html


2.May priests vest and function as deacons and sub-deacons?

In smaller parishes it is difficult to celebrate Solemn Mass due to the scarcity of priests. Thus, Solemn Mass is often served by three priests, who function as Priest, Deacon and Sub-deacon, wearing the vestments of Priest, Deacon, Sub-deacon. This is not "role playing" as some might imagine. One who is ordained to a higher order does not forfeit the lower orders he has received. Recall that a Bishop wears the dalmatic under his chasuble when celebrating Mass.

I would say that this is wishful theology done in an attempt to justify the action the theologian was seeking to justify.

A man ordained to the priesthood who then vests as a sub-deacon publicly witnesses a priestly rank that is different than the one he was ordained for. According to the posted theology a bishop may serve as a sub-deacon, for his ordination to sub-lector is still there. Do you think any bishop would do so, to publicly witness a priestly rank other then his own? 'Nuff said about wishful theology.