www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall 61 Deacons To Be Ordained

Paul thanks, you also make good points.

As for the deacon's main function being service to the church outside of the Mass, this is not a formalized thing, as of yet. I believe that I read somewhere that the Vatican is working on a document on the diaconate right now.

What, currently, does the deacon in the Roman Catholic Church do outside of the Mass that a lay person can not do?


David

Dave, they can solemnly baptize, witness marriages, celebrate the Funeral Liturgy outside of Mass, bless, preach, preside at the Liturgy of the Hours and are an ordinary minister of Eucharist outside of Mass. Don

quote by DavidB:
************************************************
Paul thanks, you also make good points.

As for the deacon's main function being service to the church outside of the Mass, this is not a formalized thing, as of yet. I believe that I read somewhere that the Vatican is working on a document on the diaconate right now.

What, currently, does the deacon in the Roman Catholic Church do outside of the Mass that a lay person can not do?
**************************************************

Dave,

Our friend Don in Kansas said a good portion of it.

Yes lay persons can run soup kitchens, visit the sick in hospital, visit those in prison, in fact all the works of mercy, but a Deacon does these things with the grace of Holy Orders. The Deacon is running with higher octane (grace) in his tank! So it is not only what you do it is how you are empowered by God to do it.

I hope this makes sense.

Paul

All,

Remember St. Francis of Assisi was a Deacon.

Paul

Thanks for the list Don.

Paul, it does make sense.

But the answer to the question I should have asked (what is the difference between a deacon and the laity) is Holy Orders.

Here in Rochester we have Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers taking communion to the sick and there are many places where lay catholics have taken the title of Chaplian at hospitals.

Now only a priest can be a chaplian but I do not think EEM's should be taking communion to the sick. If a priest is not avaliable then it should be the deacon.

There is a bluring of the lines today in the Western Church. Between the laity and those in Orders as well as those in the Diaconate and those in the Priesthood.

How does the Orders recieved by a Deacon in the Western Church differ from those recieved by a Deacon in the Eastern Church.

A Western Deacon can solemnly baptize, witness marriages, bless, and I believe he can vest with out the blessings of a priest.

Where an Eastern Deacon can not baptize, preside at a wedding, bless, nor even vest without a priests blessings.

I think the main difference is how the offices formed over time within their respective traditions. In the West, with the transational diaconate, the deacon was on his way to the priesthood so this was sort of an internship. In the East the permanent diaconate was just that, a Deacon for good.


David

Dear Friends,

I don't if a Deacon has more "octane gas" than a layperson.

Are we saying that Holy Orders makes one holier?

It grants the grace to perform a specific role within the Body of Christ.

But in terms of a holiness hierarchy, isn't it blatant sacerdotalism to speak of deacons and priests as "holier" than lay people?

Alex

Dear David,

Ultimately, the Latin Church here is in a crisis situation with respect to vocations, but, an even greater one, I believe, is with respect to the blurring of roles between clergy and laity.

Bishops appear most sensitive to this, as we've heard during interviews on EWTN of late.

Married Deacons are the "next best thing to priests" but they cannot offer Mass.

You are right about the differential in terms of what a Western Deacon can do sacramentally vs. an Eastern Deacon - those are points were pondering.

The East never saw fit to make the diaconate into a permanent clerical profession.

If anything, the East stripped away a number of roles from the Deacon that he had previously performed, including overseeing the Proskomide in the Liturgy that is now the reserve of Priests alone.

The more married Deacons the Roman Church ordains over here, the more likelihood it paves the way for greater "clericalization" of the laity and the greater the eventual pressure for married clergy.

alex

Good point Alex, which then brings up my point.

If the laity are already doing what a Deacon does, outside of the liturgy that is (marriage, baptism, preaching, liturgy of the hours are all liturgical) then whats the difference.

The Church must spell out the functions of the permanent diaconate, otherwise there will be much confusion.


David

Dear Alex:


St. Peter was married, probably with children, but presumably he WAS, or BECAME, celibate when he followed Christ to become the First-called Apostle.

Don't you think so?

Amado

Amado,
I have heard this argument before, from my Roman "friends" who wish to show me the "errors" of the East.

Can you tell me why it is presumed that St Peter was or became celibate?


David

ps this reminds me of the joke about a monk who is copying a manuscript. He realizes that he is copying a copy and talks to the abbot out this. The abbot says that they have always copied a copy but that the original is in the crypt library if he wants to look at it. The young monk reads the original and says, "It says celebrate."

Dear David,

Very good point.

(Are you taking some sort of spiritual vitamin pill that you are becoming so theologically articulate? )

I think your point relates back to mine about the clericalizaton of the laity issue.

Latin married deacons were ultimately about helping out the priest sacramentally and liturgically.

Marriage is not a problem for Latin Deacons to perform since the Latin notion of the "ministers of marriage" being the bride and groom themselves with the priest as a witness lends itself to the role being taken by deacons.

As you know, and I repeat this only for those here who might not be aware of this, the Mystery of Crowning or Marriage in the East is conferred by the priest or bishop - it is not given by the bride and groom to each other.

I've also read that the Latin Church has sometimes conferred the diaconate to Abbesses (is that true?) in monasteries.

However, the Latin Church here will define or redefine the married Diaconate, the urgency of their being needed is not because of their specific role as Deacons, but because of their being needed to try and fill in the ever-widening gaps created by fewer priests.

Alex

Dear Amado,

(Isn't David great? ).

I don't know what happened to Peter's wife. But we do know he had one, unless he was somehow just assigned a mother-in-law as a form of penance .

(I can just see it now "You von to be an Apostle, Simon?! And vat's vrong mit being a doctor?!")

In any event, the FACT that he was married did not, in the Eyes of Christ, mean that he could not become an Apostle and even the future first Patriarch of Antioch, Pope of Rome and, through Mark, founder of the Church of Alexandria!

The Apostles lived in a culture that simply did NOT accept celibacy as a valid way of life for men.

There are other cultures like that, as in Latin America, too.

The Canadian Catholic Bishops have even petitioned the VAtican to allow for Native married priests, since their culture does not admit celibacy as a valid way of life either.

Alex

Dear DavidB and Alex:

I offer no proof that St. Peter was or became celibate.

I only presumed this was so because of his (Peter's) constant travels, with or without the other Apostles and his/their disciples, to far away places like Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, and back again.

Also, I think Jesus, in selecting each and everyone of the Apostles, said rather clearly: "Come, follow me, and bear your own cross!" or to that effect.

Did Jesus say: "Come, follow me with your wife, and children . . .!?"

Amado

Dear Amado,

Being a father of a family is a very specific Cross in and of itself, as you know.

Celibate life can often be quite care-free and easy by comparison.

My church respects the married priest. He is someone whose teachings on the struggles of daily life are listened to and taken seriously.

And that is because he actually shares those struggles with his flock as a family man.

Alex

Dear Alex,

NO, no, no, (one more No) Deacons, priests and bishops are not holier than lay people. I meant that Deacons have been confered with a sacrament that gives them the graces for their state in life. You and I are saying the same thing--just loosing a bit in translating from Canadian to American.

Paul

I do prefer my clergy to be high octane.