www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Eparchial & Parish Events DEACON ORDINATION TO PRIESTHOOD

Deacon Nicolas Daddona of the Diocese of Passaic was ordained April 25th to the Byzantine Catholic Priesthood!
Father Nicolas was a Byzantine Catholic Deacon at St Andrews Parish in Westbury Long Island for almost 30 years.
He has a Wife Maureen, 3 Children and 7 Grandchildren.

Good news! Axios! Many years!
I have not spoken to Father Nicholas for many years, but I was always faithful and easy to work with.

AXIOS! AXIOS! AXIOS! Fr. Nicholas and I were in the Melkite Deacon Program many years ago. I was ordained to the priesthood about a month ago after 27 yrs. as a deacon

It would appear the Melkites are taking a somewhat more proactive approach to solving the priest shortage than are the Ruthenians.

JimG,

How so?

It is my understanding that at least six "permanent" Melkite Deacons have been ordained to the priesthood in the last year. Two are mentioned here and I attended a Divine Liturgy served by a third deacon ordained priest in April. These men were all married and did not attend formal seminary training as I understand it.

While I am glad that the Melkite Church is open to and ordaining married deacons as priests, I think having no formal priestly formation (at a seminary) is not wise.

These priests have all followed the prescribed curriculum of sacred studies for the priesthood. Their spiritual and pastoral formation was honed in the field. My own view is a riff on yours: formal priestly formation in a seminary is not wise!

This all does raise an interesting question, namely, what is the necessary preparation for a priest? We automatically presume it is formal training in a seminary but given the quality of some of the seminary education and formation we have witnessed since the 1960's I wonder if this really makes that much sense. Consider this. I am aware of two men in their 30's with young families. One has a PhD in philosophy from a major RC university and wrote a dissertation on Thomas Aquinas. The other one has two masters degrees from major RC universities in theology and pastoral studies. I would suggest that either of these men is probably better trained than the typical seminarian (except for the preaching and psychology courses). While I do not know if either would is interested in the priesthood I know neither is in a position to attend a seminary for four years. It seems that some preparation more like deaconal training would be sufficient to prepare either of these men to serve as a priest.

What is more, it seems to me that we need to get away from the model of a parish that supports a full time priest. Many of our communities are too small and/or too poor to come up with even a poverty level of salary and support. There are five Orthodox parishes in my city now. Only two have full time priests. The priests at the other three all have full time employment outside their churches.

I found Fr. Gabriel Rochelle's podcasts Musings on Mission to be not only informative on the life of the mission church but also a model for the mission priest.

I'll respectfully disagree with you Father Roman.

The seminary should be a place of discernment, formation, learning, and community. It is important that our priests are men of discernment. That they have an intense spiritual formation. That they are learned enough to combat the secular assault on our faith. Building friendships with other men who are in formation is an essential part of the formation of priests. Community life is vital.

Of course, there are bad seminaries and some deacons can be formed outside the seminary for priesthood. I do think it should not be the norm. Nor do I think, given that we have good Eastern Catholic and Orthodox seminaries in this country, it is wise. We have the resources and we should use them.
My own eparchy has sent married deacons, honed in the field, to our seminary. They complete a two-year course of study. I think they would all say that was a good preparation for the priesthood.

As the history of the Church well illustrates, seminaries are hardly the only formation process for the presbyterate. Hieromonks (monastic priests) are rarely trained in seminaries. Others are trained in small houses of studies. While others still are trained under the guidance of a director appointed by the bishop. While it is not an absolute, the ordinary requirement is for the ordinand to have a licentiate or masters degree in theology and undergo a process of formation. While it might work for some eparchies, the disruption of married life is far from ideal. There is no canonical requirement for seminary formation.

While I might qualify his statement a bit, I would also generally agree with my co celebrant, Father Romanos, that: "formation in a seminary is not wise!" I well remember many serious personnel discussions on our eparchial board of consultors. We rarely, if ever, had serious personnel problems with married or monastic priests - I wish that I could say that that was true of our non monastic celibate clergy. While I am not absolutely against seminary education, I firmly believe that any priest must be formed "in the cauldron of life." The concept of "seminaries" as a kind of "hothouse" for priestly formation was very much born in the Western Church and cemented in the Catholic Council of Trent as a means of dealing with problems peculiar to the Roman Church and its odd insistence upon a celibate clergy even for non monastics.

As for "we have good Eastern Catholic and Orthodox seminaries in this country," following "the prudence and reticence of the wise" I'll leave that for some other day. :-).

PS May I also point put that the concept of a "permanent deacon" is a bizarre concoction that is alien to our Orthodox theology. A presbyter is never called a "permanent priest"; to do so would be incorrect even for a married priest. (There are many examples of widowed married priests later consecrated bishops.

The CCEO [intratext.com] addresses this in TITLE 10 Clerics, Canons 323-398; these have a lot to say about seminaries and formation of which the most pertinent for this discussion is:


While I appreciate the need of recognizing legitimate OJT, the " not wise" and " no canonical requirement" statements (above) are opinions and rather overstated IMHO.

Que the typical "the CCEO is a Latinization forced on the Eastern Churches" rebuttal in 3...2...1....

The concept of the permanent deacon is not "bizarre" for those (the western church, more or less, at least for now) whose legitimate discipline it is to have the practice. But for those in the eastern church whose calling to the diaconate was likely not to lead to the presbyterate, and to avoid the western church's implications of the terminology, a realistic and functional designation is the long-term diaconate.

If one accepts the theology of the permanence of the sphragis/character of ordination, then those ordained to the presbyterate, being priests, are all permanent priests, "forever according to the order of Melchizedek." It is the presbyterate that need not be permanent because of the potential of episcopal ordination. Thus, all true priests are "permanent priests."

Indeed, the la-la land reply.