Sean W. Reed wrote: "Through episcopal consecration, the man who was formerly
only a priest, now has the additional capacity to do those things reserved to
the episcopal order."

And I respond:

I wish this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have been
several well documented instances in Western Church history where presbyters
have been given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to confirm.
Since confirmation/chrismation is an ordinary faculty of a presbyter in the
East, we can really honestly look at ordination as the only sacramental
differentiation between presbyters and bishops. (Jurisdiction is a different
matter, obviously). Since even Popes have given right to presbyters (usually
abbotts who are not in episcopal orders) to ordain deacons, and given one
potential way of looking at the succession of the ancient Church in Alexandria
(depending on one's reading of the patristic sources), it is clear to me that
nothing about ordination is all that clear.

I mean, is the diaconate an ordained order for men only, for men and women (many
ancient orders refer to the ordination of deaconesses!), or is it a
commissioned/consecrated lay order? There are strong arguments for either side,
just as there are strong arguments for both a seperate order for the episcopate
a notion of a consecrated presbyter. Either way, there is no real scriptural or
patristic (or even, insofar as I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature
of the orders... so, to go Germanic on the matter, I would be open to
considering it adiaphora.

Rob+

Fr. Lyons wrote:

"...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as I
can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."


Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.

SWR
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@...>

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:15:08
To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries


Sean W. Reed wrote: "Through episcopal consecration, the man who was formerly
only a priest, now has the additional capacity to do those things reserved to
the episcopal order."

And I respond:

I wish this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have been
several well documented instances in Western Church history where presbyters
have been given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to confirm.
Since confirmation/chrismation is an ordinary faculty of a presbyter in the
East, we can really honestly look at ordination as the only sacramental
differentiation between presbyters and bishops. (Jurisdiction is a different
matter, obviously). Since even Popes have given right to presbyters (usually
abbotts who are not in episcopal orders) to ordain deacons, and given one
potential way of looking at the succession of the ancient Church in Alexandria
(depending on one's reading of the patristic sources), it is clear to me that
nothing about ordination is all that clear.

I mean, is the diaconate an ordained order for men only, for men and women (many
ancient orders refer to the ordination of deaconesses!), or is it a
commissioned/consecrated lay order? There are strong arguments for either side,
just as there are strong arguments for both a seperate order for the episcopate
a notion of a consecrated presbyter. Either way, there is no real scriptural or
patristic (or even, insofar as I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature
of the orders... so, to go Germanic on the matter, I would be open to
considering it adiaphora.

Rob+




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually, Sean, your quote from the Summa shows that Thomas himself recognized
an ambiguity in the sacrament of orders.  The ambiguity stems from the fact that
the emerging medieval sacramental system did not accommodate the clear practice
of the ancient church.  The reference that I provided from the Sentences was
translated into Armenian and presented at the Council of Florence as the
Armenian Articles.   By the end of the Middle Ages there was a clear assumption
that the sacrament of orders was conferred in priestly ordination and that
bishops were simply priests with wider jurisdictions.  Hence they often
exercised their episcopal functions after they were elected or appointed before
they were consecrated (including ordaining priests).  Some died before they got
around to being consecrated.  The idea that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are
all and each ordained to a specific ministry is a product of 20th century
ecclesiology based on a
  return to patristic understanding.  As in liturgical renewal, ecclesiological
renewal has required getting behind the Western medieval development.

Frank C. Senn

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, skreed1@... <skreed1@...> wrote:

From: skreed1@... <skreed1@...>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:06 AM

















       Fr. Lyons wrote:



"...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as I
can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."





Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.



SWR

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----

From: "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@ gmail.com>



Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:15:08

To: <liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com>

Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries





Sean W. Reed wrote: "Through episcopal consecration, the man who was formerly
only a priest, now has the additional capacity to do those things reserved to
the episcopal order."



And I respond:



I wish this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have been
several well documented instances in Western Church history where presbyters
have been given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to confirm.
Since confirmation/ chrismation is an ordinary faculty of a presbyter in the
East, we can really honestly look at ordination as the only sacramental
differentiation between presbyters and bishops. (Jurisdiction is a different
matter, obviously). Since even Popes have given right to presbyters (usually
abbotts who are not in episcopal orders) to ordain deacons, and given one
potential way of looking at the succession of the ancient Church in Alexandria
(depending on one's reading of the patristic sources), it is clear to me that
nothing about ordination is all that clear.



I mean, is the diaconate an ordained order for men only, for men and women (many
ancient orders refer to the ordination of deaconesses! ), or is it a
commissioned/ consecrated lay order? There are strong arguments for either side,
just as there are strong arguments for both a seperate order for the episcopate
a notion of a consecrated presbyter. Either way, there is no real scriptural or
patristic (or even, insofar as I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature
of the orders... so, to go Germanic on the matter, I would be open to
considering it adiaphora.



Rob+







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, skreed1@... wrote:
>
> Fr. Lyons wrote:
>
> "...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as
I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."
>
>
> Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.
>
> SWR

If the Summa was the end-all, be-all of Western Theology, I might agree, but
even after the writing of the Summa (1265-1274), you find a period of time
(1400-1489) where three separate popes grant permission for presbyters serving
as abbots to ordain deacons and priests within their own abbatial jurisdiction.
These permissions were later rescinded, but the ordinations were not declared
invalid. So, either they are valid and represent a precident, or they aren't and
any Sacrament save Baptism they officiated were invalid.

Also, let's not forget that in pre-Vatican II language, subdeacon, deacon, and
presbyter were the major orders... and that bishops were not ordained, they were
consecrated. Now the Latin Rite has abolished the subdiaconate and transferred
the 'major orders' moniker to deacon, presbyter, and bishop. This is a change.
If one is free to redefine what is a major order and what is not, than the above
noted precident leaves a lot of room for discussion, a discussion that the Summa
is not alone in providing input to.

Rob+

First of all you should aware of who wrote the quote from Summa.  I sent this
presuming (bad thing to do) those reading it had sufficient familiarity with
Summa to understand the authorship.

St. Thomas Aquinas died in the midst of the treatise on Penance, hence the
change to Supplement in the citation.  His associates finished his work drawing
from his other writings.

The position listed in Summa accurately describes the understanding, and what I
think you were trying to get at later, but not your original claim about St.
Thomas.  Perhaps I had trouble with your original conveying what you intended to
convey.

As Summa points out, St. Thomas taught and the Church teaches, the episcopacy
contains the fullness of Holy Orders.  Everything a priest (and deacon) has is
contained in the Bishop with the addition of certain other faculties, all of
which is dependent upon valid orders through proper Apostolic Succession.

I don't follow the perceived ambiguity in the Sacrament.


SWR



Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Senn <fcsenn@...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 05:38:36
To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries


Actually, Sean, your quote from the Summa shows that Thomas himself recognized
an ambiguity in the sacrament of orders.  The ambiguity stems from the fact that
the emerging medieval sacramental system did not accommodate the clear practice
of the ancient church.  The reference that I provided from the Sentences was
translated into Armenian and presented at the Council of Florence as the
Armenian Articles.   By the end of the Middle Ages there was a clear assumption
that the sacrament of orders was conferred in priestly ordination and that
bishops were simply priests with wider jurisdictions.  Hence they often
exercised their episcopal functions after they were elected or appointed before
they were consecrated (including ordaining priests).  Some died before they got
around to being consecrated.  The idea that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are
all and each ordained to a specific ministry is a product of 20th century
ecclesiology based on a
  return to patristic understanding.  As in liturgical renewal, ecclesiological
renewal has required getting behind the Western medieval development.

Frank C. Senn

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, skreed1@... <skreed1@...> wrote:

From: skreed1@... <skreed1@...>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:06 AM

















       Fr. Lyons wrote:



"...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as I
can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."





Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.



SWR

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----

From: "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@ gmail.com>



Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:15:08

To: <liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com>

Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries





Sean W. Reed wrote: "Through episcopal consecration, the man who was formerly
only a priest, now has the additional capacity to do those things reserved to
the episcopal order."



And I respond:



I wish this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have been
several well documented instances in Western Church history where presbyters
have been given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to confirm.
Since confirmation/ chrismation is an ordinary faculty of a presbyter in the
East, we can really honestly look at ordination as the only sacramental
differentiation between presbyters and bishops. (Jurisdiction is a different
matter, obviously). Since even Popes have given right to presbyters (usually
abbotts who are not in episcopal orders) to ordain deacons, and given one
potential way of looking at the succession of the ancient Church in Alexandria
(depending on one's reading of the patristic sources), it is clear to me that
nothing about ordination is all that clear.



I mean, is the diaconate an ordained order for men only, for men and women (many
ancient orders refer to the ordination of deaconesses! ), or is it a
commissioned/ consecrated lay order? There are strong arguments for either side,
just as there are strong arguments for both a seperate order for the episcopate
a notion of a consecrated presbyter. Either way, there is no real scriptural or
patristic (or even, insofar as I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature
of the orders... so, to go Germanic on the matter, I would be open to
considering it adiaphora.



Rob+







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sub deacons were minor orders, not major.

Bishops in the Latin Rite are still consecrated.  The Catechism of the Catholic
Church quotes the Second Vatican Council in No 1557 reading in part that "...the
fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal
consecration..."

I don't follow the change you alleged in the Latin Rite.


As to Mitred Abbots, that is an entirely different subject.


SWR

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@...>

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:54:03
To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries


--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, skreed1@... wrote:
>
> Fr. Lyons wrote:
>
> "...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as
I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."
>
>
> Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.
>
> SWR

If the Summa was the end-all, be-all of Western Theology, I might agree, but
even after the writing of the Summa (1265-1274), you find a period of time
(1400-1489) where three separate popes grant permission for presbyters serving
as abbots to ordain deacons and priests within their own abbatial jurisdiction.
These permissions were later rescinded, but the ordinations were not declared
invalid. So, either they are valid and represent a precident, or they aren't and
any Sacrament save Baptism they officiated were invalid.

Also, let's not forget that in pre-Vatican II language, subdeacon, deacon, and
presbyter were the major orders... and that bishops were not ordained, they were
consecrated. Now the Latin Rite has abolished the subdiaconate and transferred
the 'major orders' moniker to deacon, presbyter, and bishop. This is a change.
If one is free to redefine what is a major order and what is not, than the above
noted precident leaves a lot of room for discussion, a discussion that the Summa
is not alone in providing input to.

Rob+




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

However, the actual Rite reads differently. The post-Vatican II revision
calls it the "Ordination of a Bishop."  the praenotitiae, the term
"ordination" is consistently used as the noun for the action; it should be 
noted,
however, that the term "conscecrating bishop" and "principal consecrator"  are
also used.

J. Michael Thompson
Pittsburgh, PA

chantermt@...


In a message dated 6/1/2009 9:12:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
skreed1@... writes:

Bishops in the Latin Rite are still consecrated. The Catechism of  the
Catholic Church quotes the Second Vatican Council in No 1557 reading in  part
that "...the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by
episcopal consecration.Bisho


**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol?redir=http://\
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 6/1/09 8:54 AM, "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@...>
wrote:

> Also, let's not forget that in pre-Vatican II language, subdeacon, deacon, and
> presbyter were the major orders... and that bishops were not ordained, they
> were consecrated.

I'm curious to know what proponents of the extraordinary rite do about
subdeacons now that the order has been abolished.  Do they insist on a
deacon or priest assuming the liturgical role, or do they allow seminarians
and mega-acolytes to take on the function?


Doug Cowling
Director of Music
St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
Toronto

--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, skreed1@... wrote:
>
> Sub deacons were minor orders, not major.
>

On August 15, 1972, Pope Paul VI's apostolic letter "Ministeria quaedam"
abolished the order of Subdeacon in the Latin Rite, saying:
"4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the
whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions
heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the
acolyte; consequently, ***the major order of subdiaconate*** no longer exists in
the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called
a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops."

Historically, the prohibition of marriage in the Latin Rite coincided with
ordination as a subdeacon, and the subdiaconate was the first 'rank' at which
one was referred to as "The Reverend..."

> Bishops in the Latin Rite are still consecrated.<

However, the ritual books now use the term "Ordination" either in place of or in
addition to "Consecration", signifying a change in practice or understanding of
the nature of the Episcopate.

>  The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the Second Vatican Council in No
1557 reading in part that "...the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is
conferred by episcopal consecration..."
>
> I don't follow the change you alleged in the Latin Rite.
>
>
> As to Mitred Abbots, that is an entirely different subject.

Not really - even a mitred abbot, if he is only in presbyter's office, is still
just a priest. If one priest can validly and licitly ordain, all can. You can't
have it both ways. Rome has never repuidated the ordination of presbyters and
deacons at the hands of presbyters, and so while it may be highly unusual and
possibly irregular, it cannot be declared 'invalid'. Thus, if it is not invalid,
than a presbyter ordaining someone to the diaconate or presbyterate has to be
valid. Now, you can put restrictions on it (valid with episcopal permission,
just like Confirmation), but in that instance it shows an administrative
difference, not a difference in order, as a presbyter has all the same abilities
(even if in an extrordinary fashion) that a bishop has.

Rob+

Your citation from the Summa:

"...I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways.  In one way
as a sacrament, and thus as already stated (Q.37 AA. 2,4), every Order
is directed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 
Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in
this respect the episcopate is not an Order.  In another way Order may
be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions; and
thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the
mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an
Order.  It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak..."

This citation presents two understandings of Order.  In one way it is understood
as a sacrament; in the other way it is understood as an office.  The quote tries
to find a way of relating the episcopate to Order, as if it were not
self-evident.  Why would it not be self-evident?  Because of the prevailing
understanding and practice of ordination. 

I'm not an authority on Thomas Aquinas, but neither am I ignorant of some of the
problems of interpretation.  If this quote is not from Thomas but from his
colleagues who completed the Summa, that suggests that Thomas' position is more
in line with the quote from the Sentences, which is from Thomas himself.

My original intent was nothing more than to say that there was a growing
tendency toward presbyterianism during the Middle Ages---that is, that the
sacrament of orders was conferred at ordination to the priesthood and that the
bishop was coming to be seen as a kind of "super priest" rather than as a unique
ministry not exactly the same as the ministry of the priest, which required its
own ordination.  The reference to Thomas Aquinas is simply to show that the
Angelic Doctor recognized this development.  He was not the origin of it.  But
nevertheless, he was looked upon as an authority, especially by the time of the
Council of Trent. 

The ambiguity does not lie in the sacrament as such as in "Thomas'" theologizing
on the practice of ordination as he knew it in comparison with the practice of
the ancient church, of which he may also have been aware.  Hence the two
possible way of understanding Order---if, indeed, the second understanding is
from Thomas.

Frank C. Senn

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, skreed1@... <skreed1@...> wrote:

From: skreed1@... <skreed1@...>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:54 AM

First of all you should aware of who wrote the quote from Summa.  I sent this
presuming (bad thing to do) those reading it had sufficient familiarity with
Summa to understand the authorship.

St. Thomas Aquinas died in the midst of the treatise on Penance, hence the
change to Supplement in the citation.  His associates finished his work drawing
from his other writings.

The position listed in Summa accurately describes the understanding, and what I
think you were trying to get at later, but not your original claim about St.
Thomas.  Perhaps I had trouble with your original conveying what you intended to
convey.

As Summa points out, St. Thomas taught and the Church teaches, the episcopacy
contains the fullness of Holy Orders.  Everything a priest (and deacon) has is
contained in the Bishop with the addition of certain other faculties, all of
which is dependent upon valid orders through proper Apostolic Succession.

I don't follow the perceived ambiguity in the Sacrament.


SWR



Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Senn <fcsenn@...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 05:38:36
To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries


Actually, Sean, your quote from the Summa shows that Thomas himself recognized
an ambiguity in the sacrament of orders.  The ambiguity stems from the fact that
the emerging medieval sacramental system did not accommodate the clear practice
of the ancient church.  The reference that I provided from the Sentences was
translated into Armenian and presented at the Council of Florence as the
Armenian Articles.   By the end of the Middle Ages there was a clear assumption
that the sacrament of orders was conferred in priestly ordination and that
bishops were simply priests with wider jurisdictions.  Hence they often
exercised their episcopal functions after they were elected or appointed before
they were consecrated (including ordaining priests).  Some died before they got
around to being consecrated.  The idea that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are
all and each ordained to a specific ministry is a product of 20th century
ecclesiology based on a
  return to patristic understanding.  As in liturgical renewal, ecclesiological
renewal has required getting behind the Western medieval development.

Frank C. Senn

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, skreed1@... <skreed1@...> wrote:

From: skreed1@... <skreed1@...>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:06 AM











   
           
           


     
      Fr. Lyons wrote:



"...Either way, there is no real scriptural or patristic (or even, insofar as I
can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature of the orders....."





Representing the Western Church, Summa certainly addresses much of the so
called, and alleged, confusion about orders that you seem to find.



SWR

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----

From: "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@ gmail.com>



Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:15:08

To: <liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com>

Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries





Sean W. Reed wrote: "Through episcopal consecration, the man who was formerly
only a priest, now has the additional capacity to do those things reserved to
the episcopal order."



And I respond:



I wish this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have been
several well documented instances in Western Church history where presbyters
have been given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to confirm.
Since confirmation/ chrismation is an ordinary faculty of a presbyter in the
East, we can really honestly look at ordination as the only sacramental
differentiation between presbyters and bishops. (Jurisdiction is a different
matter, obviously). Since even Popes have given right to presbyters (usually
abbotts who are not in episcopal orders) to ordain deacons, and given one
potential way of looking at the succession of the ancient Church in Alexandria
(depending on one's reading of the patristic sources), it is clear to me that
nothing about ordination is all that clear.



I mean, is the diaconate an ordained order for men only, for men and women (many
ancient orders refer to the ordination of deaconesses! ), or is it a
commissioned/ consecrated lay order? There are strong arguments for either side,
just as there are strong arguments for both a seperate order for the episcopate
a notion of a consecrated presbyter. Either way, there is no real scriptural or
patristic (or even, insofar as I can tell, middle-ages) agreement on the nature
of the orders... so, to go Germanic on the matter, I would be open to
considering it adiaphora.



Rob+







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






     

   
   
   
     
   
   








   


   
   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To
write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@...!
Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 6/1/09 9:24 AM, "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@...>
wrote:

> Historically, the prohibition of marriage in the Latin Rite coincided with
> ordination as a subdeacon, and the subdiaconate was the first 'rank' at which
> one was referred to as "The Reverend..."

And entered the celibate clerical state.  Can anyone outline the typical
pattern for seminarians in the States until the post-conciliar reform?  I
know reception of minor orders and ordination to the subdiaconate took place
in the last two years of seminary, the subdiaconate often only a few days
before the diaconate.  I'm curious to know when the ordination to the
diaconate was occurred and whether seminarian-deacons were ever assigned to
full-time work in parishes.  Did bishops wait until priestly ordination
before appointing them to full-time ministry?


Doug Cowling
Director of Music
St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
Toronto

The patristic/modern ecclesiology is reflected in the terminology of the
1979 Book of Common Prayer. The main title for all three orders is "The
Ordination of a . . .", but the ordination prayer, with laying on of hands,
has the subtitle "The Consecration of a . . ." In popular nomenclature,
however, the ordination of a bishop is almost always called a
"consecration." Rarely is it called an "ordination." Thus we continue the
medieval confusion on an unofficial level.

Ormonde Plater



From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Frank Senn
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:39 AM
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries

Actually, Sean, your quote from the Summa shows that Thomas himself
recognized an ambiguity in the sacrament of orders.  The ambiguity stems
from the fact that the emerging medieval sacramental system did not
accommodate the clear practice of the ancient church.  The reference that I
provided from the Sentences was translated into Armenian and presented at
the Council of Florence as the Armenian Articles.   By the end of the Middle
Ages there was a clear assumption that the sacrament of orders was conferred
in priestly ordination and that bishops were simply priests with wider
jurisdictions.  Hence they often exercised their episcopal functions after
they were elected or appointed before they were consecrated (including
ordaining priests).  Some died before they got around to being consecrated.
The idea that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are all and each ordained to
a specific ministry is a product of 20th century ecclesiology based on a
return to patristic understanding.  As in liturgical renewal,
ecclesiological renewal has required getting behind the Western medieval
development.

Frank C. Senn





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It is my understanding that in the RC Church, confirmation is frequently
done by priests who apparently are given faculties for same.

David


In a message dated 6/1/2009 6:15:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
fatherroblyons@... writes:

I wish  this was as easy as it sounds, but the problem is that there have
been several  well documented instances in Western Church history where
presbyters have been  given the authority to ordain (generally deacons) and to
confirm.

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol?redir=http://\
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, dlewisaao@... wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that in the RC Church, confirmation is frequently
> done by priests who apparently are given faculties for same.
>
> David

Quite true... presbyters may confirm with a faculty. However, for much of
Western Christian history, confirmation was viewed as a Sacrament/Rite to be
administered by a bishop only. The extension of such a faculty to the
presbyterate is, by in large, a new phenemenon. It is the approbation of an
episcopal act to a presbyter. Confirmation has its roots in the apostolic laying
on of hands found in the Book of Acts. When the deacon Philip journeyed to
Samaria, he baptized many, but the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them, so the
apostles Peter and John went to visit, laid hands on them, and they recieved the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So, since the rite itself has origins in apostolic work that requires apostolic
authority, it is a mirror for ordination, the only other Sacrament that a
Western priest cannot celebrate under current canon/liturgical law. And yet, we
see historical evidence of such permission being granted in the past.

As a result, the argument that presbyters cannot ordain deacons and presbyters
falls apart. There is also the disputed reading that is quoted in "Power and
Primacy of the Pope" which, citing patristic sources, states that the elders
(presbyters) at Alexandria, Egypt selected and installed one of their own number
as bishop over them. I don't have the patristic text handy, as I am out of my
office at the moment, but the text, as I recall offhand, says nothing about
other bishops being called in.

Let me qualify my remarks by stating that I believe the episcopate to be the
best mode of governing the Church, but to claim it as being of Divine Right when
Peter refers to himself as a presbyter in the Scriptures is a dubious claim, and
that the Church would be much better suited to acknowledge a single ordination
to the Christian ministerial priesthood, which is manifest in the presbyteral
and episcopal charisms.

Egad, I am staring to sound like a Lutheran... ;)

Rob+

On 6/1/09 11:22 AM, "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <fatherroblyons@...>
wrote:

> Let me qualify my remarks by stating that I believe the episcopate to be the
> best mode of governing the Church, but to claim it as being of Divine Right
> when Peter refers to himself as a presbyter in the Scriptures is a dubious
> claim, and that the Church would be much better suited to acknowledge a single
> ordination to the Christian ministerial priesthood, which is manifest in the
> presbyteral and episcopal charisms.
>
> Egad, I am staring to sound like a Lutheran... ;)


There will certainly always be tension between the vertical and horizontal
models of leadership. The Second Vatican Council attempted to step around
the dilemma by refocussing on the patristic emphasis on baptism as the
common sharing in the priesthood of Christ.  The various orders then are not
fuller or lesser positions in a hierarchy but rather charisms of particular
service.  Thus, a humble reader in a small parish has an office of
proclamation which is differentiated from but not "lesser" than the pope's
office of unity in the universal primacy.  Like the reader, the pope is
first and foremost a "servant of the servants of God."


Doug Cowling
Director of Music
St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
Toronto

Actually, the rite of confirmation is rooted in the bishop's role of receiving
the newly baptized into the eucharistic fellowship.  Emerging from the
baptistery, where they were bathed by presbyters (deaconesses for women) the
newly baptized are greeted by the bishop with the laying on of hands and
post-baptismal anointing and the greeting of peace.  This is he structure in the
church orders, beginning with the so-called Apostolic Tradition attributed to
Hippolytus perhaps of Rome.  It is anachronistic to read this rite back into
Acts 8, which may have had more to do with bringing the practice of the
Samaritans into the "orthodoxy" of the Jerusalem Church.  They did not believe
they had received the Holy Spirit when they were baptized.   This reading of the
historical development, of course, opens another can of worms such as the
sacrament of orders, since the often-separated rite of confirmation received
theological interpretation that corresponded
  with the practice. 

Frank C. Senn 

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...> wrote:

From: Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...>
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 10:22 AM

















       --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, dlewisaao@.. . wrote:

>

> It is my understanding that in the RC Church, confirmation is frequently

> done by priests who apparently are given faculties for same.

>

> David



Quite true... presbyters may confirm with a faculty. However, for much of
Western Christian history, confirmation was viewed as a Sacrament/Rite to be
administered by a bishop only. The extension of such a faculty to the
presbyterate is, by in large, a new phenemenon. It is the approbation of an
episcopal act to a presbyter. Confirmation has its roots in the apostolic laying
on of hands found in the Book of Acts. When the deacon Philip journeyed to
Samaria, he baptized many, but the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them, so the
apostles Peter and John went to visit, laid hands on them, and they recieved the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.



So, since the rite itself has origins in apostolic work that requires apostolic
authority, it is a mirror for ordination, the only other Sacrament that a
Western priest cannot celebrate under current canon/liturgical law. And yet, we
see historical evidence of such permission being granted in the past.



As a result, the argument that presbyters cannot ordain deacons and presbyters
falls apart. There is also the disputed reading that is quoted in "Power and
Primacy of the Pope" which, citing patristic sources, states that the elders
(presbyters) at Alexandria, Egypt selected and installed one of their own number
as bishop over them. I don't have the patristic text handy, as I am out of my
office at the moment, but the text, as I recall offhand, says nothing about
other bishops being called in.



Let me qualify my remarks by stating that I believe the episcopate to be the
best mode of governing the Church, but to claim it as being of Divine Right when
Peter refers to himself as a presbyter in the Scriptures is a dubious claim, and
that the Church would be much better suited to acknowledge a single ordination
to the Christian ministerial priesthood, which is manifest in the presbyteral
and episcopal charisms.



Egad, I am staring to sound like a Lutheran... ;)



Rob+




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

dlewisaao@... wrote:
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that in the RC Church, confirmation is frequently
> done by priests who apparently are given faculties for same.
>
> David

True indeed. In fact, the current initiation rites automatically call
for a presbyter to administer confirmation immediately after baptism of
a person of the age of discretion, with no special authorization
required. (This was however totally ignored by the rector of St. Cecilia
Cathedral, Omaha, at a Sunday baptism I witnessed in the late 90's, at a
time when the RC parish in which I ministered had been observing the
current rite for several years!).

John

SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?

An excellent proposal.
I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One could
add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
Psalms in unison.

I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
throughout the house church period.

I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and the
elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves, except
I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
preceded Constantine.

I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music ministers
followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
church ministers in the Empire.

All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
the list.

My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be sung
by a specialist, such as a gradual.
*

Tom Poelker
St. Louis. Missouri
USA

/-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
It?s nice to see people smile,
and it?s good practice. --/

*


Paul Goings wrote:
>
>
> Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
> same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall this
> as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
> that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general statement,
> I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
> eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
> well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
> to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
> Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements of
> the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
> into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
> bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
> hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
>
> Paul Goings
> Philadelphia, PA
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how early the
evidence is for having readings of some sort during the eucharistic celebration?
And if there is any indication who was doing the reading?

I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest know
examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings themselves
aren't counted.

I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully that
will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.

Paul Goings
Philadelphia, PA

--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@...> wrote:
> SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?
>
> An excellent proposal.
> I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
> Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One could
> add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
> and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
> Psalms in unison.
>
> I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
> throughout the house church period.
>
> I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
> I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and the
> elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves, except
> I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
> preceded Constantine.
>
> I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music ministers
> followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
> church ministers in the Empire.
>
> All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
> the list.
>
> My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be sung
> by a specialist, such as a gradual.
> *
>
> Tom Poelker
> St. Louis. Missouri
>
> Paul Goings wrote:
> > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
> > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall this
> > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
> > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general statement,
> > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
> > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
> > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
> > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
> > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements of
> > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
> > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
> > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
> > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
> >
> > Paul Goings
> > Philadelphia, PA

- Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67:87.  "And on the day called Sunday there is a
meeting in one place of those who live in the cities or the country, and the
memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time
permits.  When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and
invites us to the imitation of these noble things."  The passage goes on to
speak of the prayers, the offerings of bread and a cup of wine mixed with water,
the president's thanksgiving with the congregation's "Amen", the distribution
and reception of the elements, and the extended distribution to the absent by
the deacons---and the common chest from which the president takes care of the
orphans and widows.  Rome ca. 150 A.D.  Four liturgical roles:  reader,
president, people, deacon.  "President" is probably used here because the Roman
senators, to whom the Apology is addressed, would have known about supper
clubs.  In case the
  question is asked: there's no clue as to whether the president is a bishop or
presbyter.

Frank C. Senn

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Paul Goings <paul_goings@...> wrote:

From: Paul Goings <paul_goings@...>
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 3:14 PM

















       Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how early
the evidence is for having readings of some sort during the eucharistic
celebration? And if there is any indication who was doing the reading?



I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest know
examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings themselves
aren't counted.



I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully that
will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.



Paul Goings

Philadelphia, PA



--- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@ ...> wrote:

> SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?

>

> An excellent proposal.

> I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the

> Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One could

> add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day

> and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate

> Psalms in unison.

>

> I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern

> throughout the house church period.

>

> I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.

> I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and the

> elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves, except

> I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches

> preceded Constantine.

>

> I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music ministers

> followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of

> church ministers in the Empire.

>

> All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of

> the list.

>

> My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be sung

> by a specialist, such as a gradual.

> *

>

> Tom Poelker

> St. Louis. Missouri

>

> Paul Goings wrote:

> > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the

> > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall this

> > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like

> > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general statement,

> > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the

> > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so

> > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is

> > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?

> > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements of

> > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking

> > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian

> > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on

> > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.

> >

> > Paul Goings

> > Philadelphia, PA




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/1/2009 09:22:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
cowling.douglas@... writes:

I'm  curious to know what proponents of the extraordinary rite do  about
subdeacons now that the order has been abolished. Do they insist on  a
deacon or priest assuming the liturgical role, or do they allow  seminarians
and mega-acolytes to take on the  function?>>>>>>>>


The Order of the Subdiaconate hasn't been abolished for
the Tridentines/Extraordinary Form of the RC Rite.  They
continue to ordain to the various minor Orders, including
that of the Subdiaconate, and I can attest to its lengthy
medieval splendor - The Ritual is as much a choral workout
as is the Ordination to the Diaconate or Priesthood.

Subdeacons or deacons serve the liturgical role of a
subdeacon at Solemn High Mass.  At least this is what
I observed,  singing the Tridentine Rite for 15 years in a
parish staffed by the FSSP [Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter].


David Strang.


**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol?redir=http://\
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I do not recognize this phrase.
Can you cite a document and paragraph?
I'll have to see if I can come up with something specific to answer your
first part.
*

Tom Poelker
St. Louis. Missouri
USA

/-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
It?s nice to see people smile,
and it?s good practice. --/

*


ignatios2000 wrote:
>
>
>
> Can you give the citation which you base this claim of conflict with
> the Council, and can you reconcile the Council's use of the phrase
> "dispensers of mysteries on behalf of others" with your criticism?
>
> thomas
>
> From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tom Poelker
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:01 PM
> To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] How about bells? or not?
>
> John,
> thank you for this very informative and well thought out posting.
> regarding this portion:
> "But we do in fact have a theology of the One Priest offering for the
> people, and the bishop (and by delegation, the presbyter) is the one
> ordained specifically for the ministry of
> offering ('anapherein', whence 'anaphora') at the front of, on behalf
> of, and in the name of the Church"
>
> It is the phrase "on behalf of" which seems to me to be in conflict with
> the teachings of Vatican II. The presider, in my understanding, leads
> the community which, as a community, is offering/celebrating the
> Eucharist. "On behalf of" seems to make all others witnesses to a
> clerical action rather than participants in the action under the
> leadership of the ordained whom you so well described.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 6/1/09 6:05 PM, "cantor03@..." <cantor03@...> wrote:

> The Order of the Subdiaconate hasn't been abolished for
> the Tridentines/Extraordinary Form of the RC Rite.

Is there a papal indult for this?

Doug Cowling
Director of Music
St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
Toronto

Wow.... Justin Martyr distributed bread and wine.

Lew



On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:

> - Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67:87.  "And on the day called Sunday there
> is a meeting in one place of those who live in the cities or the country,
> and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as
> long as time permits.  When the reader has finished, the president in a
> discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things."  The
> passage goes on to speak of the prayers, the offerings of bread and a cup of
> wine mixed with water, the president's thanksgiving with the congregation's
> "Amen", the distribution and reception of the elements, and the extended
> distribution to the absent by the deacons---and the common chest from which
> the president takes care of the orphans and widows.  Rome ca. 150 A.D.  Four
> liturgical roles:  reader, president, people, deacon.  "President" is
> probably used here because the Roman senators, to whom the Apology is
> addressed, would have known about supper clubs.  In case the
>  question is asked: there's no clue as to whether the president is a bishop
> or presbyter.
>
> Frank C. Senn
>
> --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Paul Goings <paul_goings@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Goings <paul_goings@...>
> Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
> To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 3:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how
> early the evidence is for having readings of some sort during the
> eucharistic celebration? And if there is any indication who was doing the
> reading?
>
>
>
> I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest
> know examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings
> themselves aren't counted.
>
>
>
> I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully
> that will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.
>
>
>
> Paul Goings
>
> Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>
> --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@ ...> wrote:
>
> > SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?
>
> >
>
> > An excellent proposal.
>
> > I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
>
> > Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One could
>
> > add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
>
> > and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
>
> > Psalms in unison.
>
> >
>
> > I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
>
> > throughout the house church period.
>
> >
>
> > I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
>
> > I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and the
>
> > elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves, except
>
> > I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
>
> > preceded Constantine.
>
> >
>
> > I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music ministers
>
> > followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
>
> > church ministers in the Empire.
>
> >
>
> > All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
>
> > the list.
>
> >
>
> > My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be sung
>
> > by a specialist, such as a gradual.
>
> > *
>
> >
>
> > Tom Poelker
>
> > St. Louis. Missouri
>
> >
>
> > Paul Goings wrote:
>
> > > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
>
> > > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall this
>
> > > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
>
> > > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general statement,
>
> > > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
>
> > > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
>
> > > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
>
> > > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
>
> > > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements of
>
> > > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
>
> > > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
>
> > > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
>
> > > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
>
> > >
>
> > > Paul Goings
>
> > > Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Which would mean that Methodist pastors and all Lutheran pastors would be
considered legitimate presbyters by the RCs?

Shalom b'Yeshua haMoshiach     +Michael Joe Thannischy
   mjthannisch@...  Pastor, Congregation Benim Avraham 
http://www.freewebs.com/childrenofabraham/ 
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Joe-Thannisch/1173094868  204 Sylvan St. 
La Porte, TX 77571  281-867-9081

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...> wrote:

From: Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...>
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 8:24 AM

















       --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, skreed1@... wrote:

>

> Sub deacons were minor orders, not major.

>



On August 15, 1972, Pope Paul VI's apostolic letter "Ministeria quaedam"
abolished the order of Subdeacon in the Latin Rite, saying:

"4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the
whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions
heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the
acolyte; consequently, ***the major order of subdiaconate* ** no longer exists
in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be
called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of
bishops."



Historically, the prohibition of marriage in the Latin Rite coincided with
ordination as a subdeacon, and the subdiaconate was the first 'rank' at which
one was referred to as "The Reverend..."



> Bishops in the Latin Rite are still consecrated. <



However, the ritual books now use the term "Ordination" either in place of or in
addition to "Consecration" , signifying a change in practice or understanding of
the nature of the Episcopate.



>  The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the Second Vatican Council in No
1557 reading in part that "...the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is
conferred by episcopal consecration. .."

>

> I don't follow the change you alleged in the Latin Rite.

>

>

> As to Mitred Abbots, that is an entirely different subject.



Not really - even a mitred abbot, if he is only in presbyter's office, is still
just a priest. If one priest can validly and licitly ordain, all can. You can't
have it both ways. Rome has never repuidated the ordination of presbyters and
deacons at the hands of presbyters, and so while it may be highly unusual and
possibly irregular, it cannot be declared 'invalid'. Thus, if it is not invalid,
than a presbyter ordaining someone to the diaconate or presbyterate has to be
valid. Now, you can put restrictions on it (valid with episcopal permission,
just like Confirmation) , but in that instance it shows an administrative
difference, not a difference in order, as a presbyter has all the same abilities
(even if in an extrordinary fashion) that a bishop has.



Rob+




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Don't we have this discussion (about Confirmation) at least once a year?

Lew


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:

> Actually, the rite of confirmation is rooted in the bishop's role of
> receiving the newly baptized into the eucharistic fellowship.  Emerging from
> the baptistery, where they were bathed by presbyters (deaconesses for women)
> the newly baptized are greeted by the bishop with the laying on of hands and
> post-baptismal anointing and the greeting of peace.  This is he structure in
> the church orders, beginning with the so-called Apostolic Tradition
> attributed to Hippolytus perhaps of Rome.  It is anachronistic to read this
> rite back into Acts 8, which may have had more to do with bringing the
> practice of the Samaritans into the "orthodoxy" of the Jerusalem Church.
> They did not believe they had received the Holy Spirit when they were
> baptized.   This reading of the historical development, of course, opens
> another can of worms such as the sacrament of orders, since the
> often-separated rite of confirmation received theological interpretation
> that corresponded
>  with the practice.
>
> Frank C. Senn
>
> --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...>
> wrote:
>
> From: Father Robert Lyons, SST <fatherroblyons@...>
> Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: ordained ministries
> To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 10:22 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, dlewisaao@.. . wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It is my understanding that in the RC Church, confirmation is frequently
>
> > done by priests who apparently are given faculties for same.
>
> >
>
> > David
>
>
>
> Quite true... presbyters may confirm with a faculty. However, for much of
> Western Christian history, confirmation was viewed as a Sacrament/Rite to be
> administered by a bishop only. The extension of such a faculty to the
> presbyterate is, by in large, a new phenemenon. It is the approbation of an
> episcopal act to a presbyter. Confirmation has its roots in the apostolic
> laying on of hands found in the Book of Acts. When the deacon Philip
> journeyed to Samaria, he baptized many, but the Holy Spirit did not descend
> upon them, so the apostles Peter and John went to visit, laid hands on them,
> and they recieved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
>
>
>
> So, since the rite itself has origins in apostolic work that requires
> apostolic authority, it is a mirror for ordination, the only other Sacrament
> that a Western priest cannot celebrate under current canon/liturgical law.
> And yet, we see historical evidence of such permission being granted in the
> past.
>
>
>
> As a result, the argument that presbyters cannot ordain deacons and
> presbyters falls apart. There is also the disputed reading that is quoted in
> "Power and Primacy of the Pope" which, citing patristic sources, states that
> the elders (presbyters) at Alexandria, Egypt selected and installed one of
> their own number as bishop over them. I don't have the patristic text handy,
> as I am out of my office at the moment, but the text, as I recall offhand,
> says nothing about other bishops being called in.
>
>
>
> Let me qualify my remarks by stating that I believe the episcopate to be
> the best mode of governing the Church, but to claim it as being of Divine
> Right when Peter refers to himself as a presbyter in the Scriptures is a
> dubious claim, and that the Church would be much better suited to
> acknowledge a single ordination to the Christian ministerial priesthood,
> which is manifest in the presbyteral and episcopal charisms.
>
>
>
> Egad, I am staring to sound like a Lutheran... ;)
>
>
>
> Rob+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What does the subdeacon do, liturgically, beyond reading the epistle and
carrying the processional cross? I'm trying to remember something from
Thomas Merton (Sign of Jonas, I think) about the SD holding up the paten ...
or am I misremembering?

Lew


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM, <cantor03@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/1/2009 09:22:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
> cowling.douglas@... writes:
>
> I'm  curious to know what proponents of the extraordinary rite do  about
> subdeacons now that the order has been abolished. Do they insist on  a
> deacon or priest assuming the liturgical role, or do they allow
>  seminarians
> and mega-acolytes to take on the  function?>>>>>>>>
>
>
> The Order of the Subdiaconate hasn't been abolished for
> the Tridentines/Extraordinary Form of the RC Rite.  They
> continue to ordain to the various minor Orders, including
> that of the Subdiaconate, and I can attest to its lengthy
> medieval splendor - The Ritual is as much a choral workout
> as is the Ordination to the Diaconate or Priesthood.
>
> Subdeacons or deacons serve the liturgical role of a
> subdeacon at Solemn High Mass.  At least this is what
> I observed,  singing the Tridentine Rite for 15 years in a
> parish staffed by the FSSP [Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter].
>
>
> David Strang.
>
>
> **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
> Steps!
> (
>
http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol?redir=http://w\
ww.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
>
eExcfooterNO62<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol\
?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=J\
un%0AeExcfooterNO62>
> )
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wow, Lew did not read carefully.

He did not say bread and wine were distributed.



SWR
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:54:59
To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?


Wow.... Justin Martyr distributed bread and wine.

Lew



On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:

> - Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67:87.  "And on the day called Sunday there
> is a meeting in one place of those who live in the cities or the country,
> and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as
> long as time permits.  When the reader has finished, the president in a
> discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things."  The
> passage goes on to speak of the prayers, the offerings of bread and a cup of
> wine mixed with water, the president's thanksgiving with the congregation's
> "Amen", the distribution and reception of the elements, and the extended
> distribution to the absent by the deacons---and the common chest from which
> the president takes care of the orphans and widows.  Rome ca. 150 A.D.  Four
> liturgical roles:  reader, president, people, deacon.  "President" is
> probably used here because the Roman senators, to whom the Apology is
> addressed, would have known about supper clubs.  In case the
>  question is asked: there's no clue as to whether the president is a bishop
> or presbyter.
>
> Frank C. Senn
>
> --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Paul Goings <paul_goings@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Goings <paul_goings@...>
> Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
> To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 3:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how
> early the evidence is for having readings of some sort during the
> eucharistic celebration? And if there is any indication who was doing the
> reading?
>
>
>
> I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest
> know examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings
> themselves aren't counted.
>
>
>
> I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully
> that will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.
>
>
>
> Paul Goings
>
> Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>
> --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@ ...> wrote:
>
> > SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?
>
> >
>
> > An excellent proposal.
>
> > I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
>
> > Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One could
>
> > add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
>
> > and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
>
> > Psalms in unison.
>
> >
>
> > I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
>
> > throughout the house church period.
>
> >
>
> > I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
>
> > I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and the
>
> > elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves, except
>
> > I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
>
> > preceded Constantine.
>
> >
>
> > I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music ministers
>
> > followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
>
> > church ministers in the Empire.
>
> >
>
> > All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
>
> > the list.
>
> >
>
> > My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be sung
>
> > by a specialist, such as a gradual.
>
> > *
>
> >
>
> > Tom Poelker
>
> > St. Louis. Missouri
>
> >
>
> > Paul Goings wrote:
>
> > > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
>
> > > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall this
>
> > > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
>
> > > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general statement,
>
> > > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
>
> > > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
>
> > > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
>
> > > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
>
> > > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements of
>
> > > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
>
> > > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
>
> > > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
>
> > > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
>
> > >
>
> > > Paul Goings
>
> > > Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, holding the paten in a humeral veil is a subdeacon duty in the
Extraordinary/Tridentine form of the RC Mass.

Here's what I do when I'm subdeacon in my Anglo-Catholic parish:

- Assist the celebrant with his cope by holding up the side of it
while the deacon holds the other side at various times; while
proceeding three abreast; while genuflecting; while the celebrant
sprinkles the people or censes the altar; while he prays the collect
of the day.
- Chant the epistle
- Hold the Gospel book for the deacon while he chants the Gospel of
the day; take the book to the celebrant to kiss it after the Gospel is
chanted
- Go with the deacon to get the cruets, ciborium, and flagon from the
people who bring it forward from the narthex
- Assist the deacon in preparing the altar for the offertory (hand him
the wine cruet; pour a blip of water in the chalice and flagon)
- Assist the deacon in removing the celebrant's cope and putting the
chasuble on him
- Point the altar book for the celebrant to help him keep his place
from the concluding paragraph of the preface through the fraction
anthem
- Administer the chalice, following the celebrant along half of the
altar rail (other half done by deacon)
- Assist in ablutions: consuming remaining Sacrament, pouring wine and
water for cleansing; schlepping things to acolytes
- Giving the chalice veil to the deacon and then taking the veiled
chalice to the credence table
- Collect the deacon's vestments and take them to the sacristy

Other than those things, just participating in the responses,
processions, and so on.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:
> What does the subdeacon do, liturgically, beyond reading the epistle and
> carrying the processional cross? I'm trying to remember something from
> Thomas Merton (Sign of Jonas, I think) about the SD holding up the paten ...
> or am I misremembering?
>
> Lew
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM, <cantor03@...> wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 6/1/2009 09:22:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
>> cowling.douglas@... writes:
>>
>> I'm  curious to know what proponents of the extraordinary rite do  about
>> subdeacons now that the order has been abolished. Do they insist on  a
>> deacon or priest assuming the liturgical role, or do they allow
>>  seminarians
>> and mega-acolytes to take on the  function?>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> The Order of the Subdiaconate hasn't been abolished for
>> the Tridentines/Extraordinary Form of the RC Rite.  They
>> continue to ordain to the various minor Orders, including
>> that of the Subdiaconate, and I can attest to its lengthy
>> medieval splendor - The Ritual is as much a choral workout
>> as is the Ordination to the Diaconate or Priesthood.
>>
>> Subdeacons or deacons serve the liturgical role of a
>> subdeacon at Solemn High Mass.  At least this is what
>> I observed,  singing the Tridentine Rite for 15 years in a
>> parish staffed by the FSSP [Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter].
>>
>>
>> David Strang.
>>
>>
>> **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
>> Steps!
>> (
>>
http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol?redir=http://w\
ww.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
>>
eExcfooterNO62<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377040x1201454360/aol\
?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=J\
un%0AeExcfooterNO62>
>> )
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
>> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To
write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@...!
Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Scott R. Knitter
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA

Wow,

Bread and wine were offered, elements were distributed.

He certainly didn't talk of transubstantiation.

Lew


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM, <skreed1@...> wrote:

> Wow, Lew did not read carefully.
>
> He did not say bread and wine were distributed.
>
>
>
> SWR
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...>
>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:54:59
> To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
>
>
> Wow.... Justin Martyr distributed bread and wine.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:
>
> > - Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67:87.  "And on the day called Sunday
> there
> > is a meeting in one place of those who live in the cities or the country,
> > and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read
> as
> > long as time permits.  When the reader has finished, the president in a
> > discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things."
>  The
> > passage goes on to speak of the prayers, the offerings of bread and a cup
> of
> > wine mixed with water, the president's thanksgiving with the
> congregation's
> > "Amen", the distribution and reception of the elements, and the extended
> > distribution to the absent by the deacons---and the common chest from
> which
> > the president takes care of the orphans and widows.  Rome ca. 150 A.D.
>  Four
> > liturgical roles:  reader, president, people, deacon.  "President" is
> > probably used here because the Roman senators, to whom the Apology is
> > addressed, would have known about supper clubs.  In case the
> >  question is asked: there's no clue as to whether the president is a
> bishop
> > or presbyter.
> >
> > Frank C. Senn
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Paul Goings <paul_goings@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Paul Goings <paul_goings@...>
> > Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
> > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 3:14 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how
> > early the evidence is for having readings of some sort during the
> > eucharistic celebration? And if there is any indication who was doing the
> > reading?
> >
> >
> >
> > I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest
> > know examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings
> > themselves aren't counted.
> >
> >
> >
> > I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully
> > that will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Goings
> >
> > Philadelphia, PA
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > > SUBJECT WAS: How about bells?  or not?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > An excellent proposal.
> >
> > > I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
> >
> > > Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider.  One
> could
> >
> > > add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
> >
> > > and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
> >
> > > Psalms in unison.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
> >
> > > throughout the house church period.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
> >
> > > I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and
> the
> >
> > > elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves,
> except
> >
> > > I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
> >
> > > preceded Constantine.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music
> ministers
> >
> > > followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
> >
> > > church ministers in the Empire.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
> >
> > > the list.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be
> sung
> >
> > > by a specialist, such as a gradual.
> >
> > > *
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Tom Poelker
> >
> > > St. Louis. Missouri
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Paul Goings wrote:
> >
> > > > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
> >
> > > > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall
> this
> >
> > > > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
> >
> > > > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general
> statement,
> >
> > > > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
> >
> > > > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
> >
> > > > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
> >
> > > > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
> >
> > > > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements
> of
> >
> > > > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
> >
> > > > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
> >
> > > > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
> >
> > > > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Paul Goings
> >
> > > > Philadelphia, PA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the moderators, please
> email:
> > liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the moderators, please email:
> liturgy-l-owner@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]