Bože! A Grace Catholic Project

Bože!
Celebrating The Diaconate

Today we commemorate the deacons Prochor, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas mentioned in Acts 6.5. They were chosen by the community to serve the social ministry needs of the community so that the Disciples could maintain their focus on teaching and study. According to tradition two became bishops (Prochor and Timon), the other two – it appears (but don’t hold me to this) remained deacons. Timon and Nicanor were both martyred – the first was stoned to death in Jerusalem, the other was burned alive by Pagans in Arabia.

Some years ago I attened a conference in Baltimore on the development of, and resurgence of the diaconate. One of the things that really struck me over the course of the day long gathering was how in many ways the modern diaconate had lost its way – becoming little more than a stepping stone to the priesthood. The attendees were keen to see something done about this – to restore this ancient order. At the time as well many of the liturgical churches were undergoing a renaissance and re-examination of the diaconate – it was fun to see it happening, and to visit with people from various traditions who might best be described as “diaconal activists”.

One of the things I realised both through my participation in the conference, and through the reading I did around that time is that we indie folk have an advantage. Whereas many of the “Big Tent” churches desire to re-invigorate this ancient service order – they find it difficult because of existing attitudes, rules, and accumulated customs surrounding it. There is an “expectation” in many cases that the person will only be a deacon for a limited time. We dont have the weight of Tradition bearing down on us in the same way that other communities do – which gives us a real opportunity to institute unhindered some of the great ideas that came out of this period in the early ’90s. Namely – to stop treating the diaconate like it is a stepping stone to the priesthood – make it a permanant order.

I’d like to know what – if anything – other indie communities are doing about the diaconate. Our community has made an effort to restore it to a fuller expression of “catholic-ness” (see some of my earlier posts to understand my term use here) by making it a permanent order.

To be sure this raises some interesting questions about history, and the development of the “transitional” diaconate. Why is it that by the 19th century candidates for ordination were successively ordained through the minor orders, the diaconate, and the preisthood – rather than directly to their order? Has anyone seen any research on this? To my knowledge there is no theological reason not to ordain directly to the order – if we accept that the charism is complete at the time of installation rather than having to be augmented.

28/07/2009 | Filed under Calendar, OC/IC Issues, OC/IC Theology - Ways of Doing Theology, Theology of Ordained Service and tagged with , , .

Tags: , ,

  • http://bishopatlarge.blogspot.com/ Tim Cravens

    I’m confused by your reference to the 19th century. The practice of those being ordained to the priesthood passing first through the minor orders and diaconate is quite ancient, definitely from the first millenium. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, lists the minor orders in the exact order they were used up until after Vatican II in the Roman denomination and treats them as an ancient institution. The Orthodox have a different grouping of minor orders but have done the same thing for many, many centuries.

    Asking the question about direct ordination of the priesthood to raise up the diaconate is sort of like suggesting that priests and bishops shouldn’t be baptized, in order to raise up the ministry of the laity. I think Romans and Anglicans made a profound mistake by getting rid of the minor orders (although the Romans have retained two “ministries” of lector and acolye) — I think those of us in the indie world have been wise in keeping them. All ordained ministry, especially priestly and episcopal ministry, must be grounded in servanthood, and that is why priests and bishops should first spend a significant time in the diaconate.

    The idea that we have the right and authority to lay aside well over a millenium of tradition (with the exception of traditions that are specifically harmful to groups of people, such as the anti-Semitic passages in the liturgy, the denial of ordination to women, or the denial of the sacrament of marriage to gay couples) is mind-bogglingly arrogant.

  • Alexis

    Hi Tim,

    My reference to the 19th century was two fold. Firstly the development of “passing through” the various orders on the way to the priesthood was fully developed – and to be sure had been sometime in the Medieval period. Secondly, it was an oblique reference (I think I assumed too much – sorry ‘bout that) to the fact that by this time candidates were often ordained through the various orders in 72 hours or less – as exemplified by the ordination of Abp. Vilatte on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of June 1885. Obviously Vilatte spent no time in any of the minor orders, and only 24 hours as a deacon. It is a very real example of how by this time the diaconate had become little more than a stepping stone towards priesthood.

    I would like to know the history of this process – it was not always so, and I think I’m not too far off the mark when I say that it was certainly not the norm before the 8th century.

  • Tim Cravens

    The transitional diaconate was the norm by the fourth or fifth century in the West — perhaps earlier.

    I agree that quickly passing through all of the orders is an abuse — but abolishing them altogether would be a far worse abuse. Again, just as ordination makes absolutely no sense whatsoever without baptism and confirmation (I disagree with the 1979 BCP crowd who are trying to abolish the latter sacrament), so ordination to the priesthood makes no sense — and is even potentially harmful — in the absence of a foundation of commitment to servanthood. Which is why my jurisdiction has a requirement of a one-year diaconate, no exceptions. And we require a significant time in each minor order (although that is more flexible, given an individual’s preparation).

    Were the minor orders and transitional diaconate to be abolished by an IC/OC jurisdiction, that jurisdiction and its members would cease to have the right to be heard on the issue of the lack of preparation of IC/OC clergy. It is the strict enforcement of these that is the best path, bar none, to ensure grounded clergy.

  • Michael

    I’m going to agree with Tim that the transitional deacon makes perfect sense. To take this thread to an absurd extreme, perhaps, no one would suggest that we should make Doorkeepers permanent – and then say that someone who’s going to be a priest *shouldn’t* have ever spent some time as a vestry member or keyholder. The fact that they did doesn’t take away from the person who’s doing it now, and being a priest doesn’t mean you can’t still open the church if you get there first. Reading the bible in liturgy isn’t something that should *have* to dead end; it isn’t something that should *require* that you go further, but it is certainly reasonable that anyone who gets ordained as a priest *should have read the bible in liturgy* beforehand, and be capable of it after ordination as well, if required. ;-)

  • Alexis

    I’ve just done a quick scan of sources ranging from the 4th through to the 14th century to see what, if any consensus there is about a) “transitional” diaconate, and b) anything barring someone being ordained directly to their intended order. It’s all rather interesting.

    First I’ll tackle “B” – is there anything in the sources barring an individual from being ordained directly to his/her intended order? Not that I can find. There are however, some rather intriguing caveats. A 14th century Coptic source says that it is prudent to choose candidates for the priesthood from among “the clergy” – now this means anything from Doorkeeper through to Deacon. Thus, one who is a Doorkeeper or an Anagnost can theoretically be ordained a Deacon or Priest without controversy. In all the sources regardless of how ambiguous they might be about the stage at which one might be “ordained” emphasise the need to ensure the suitability of candidates (most citing 1Timothy 3, and 5.22 with expansions as the minimum standard) – many of the later medieval sources urge but do not require that candidates come forth from the existing body of clergy because they have been tested by the community as a whole, and have shown themselves to be worthy. Earlier sources however, emphasise discernment, and the work of the Holy Spirit in this process. Thus the community after prayer and discernment chooses the candidates to be ordained directly to their order.

    This leads nicely into looking at “A” – what, if any consensus is there about the emergence of the “transitional” diaconate? Tim mentions that he believes that, in the West at least, the practice is well established by the fourth century, if not earlier. I’m not so sure about this. Firstly it is not until after the fifth century that we see a stabilisation in the role and identity of the deacon and priest (one reason why I earlier said that the transitional diaconate probably became the norm post 8th century). Indeed a number of the sources I’ve looked at suggest that it is in this Late Antique period that we really begin to see what we know now as the “transitional” diaconate emerge. I think it is worth pointing out here though that this bit of history is neither straightforward nor consistent across the board – practice varied widely reflecting, I think, the fact that the role and identity of the two orders was still very much in flux. What is certain is that in the West at least – the “transitional” diaconate evolved as a formality, much like the minor orders had – to the point that, pre-Vatican II we find the situation of Abp. Villatte to be normative rather than exceptional. This did not really happen in the East. In short there is no consensus – except in the medieval western Church.

    There are some intriguing “anomalies” worth mentioning. First is the 10th canon of the Council of Serdica (AD343) states that a prominent citizen, or a professor, may not be made a bishop directly – but must first serve as an Anagnost, Deacon, and Presbyter. If he is subsequently deemed worthy of each post – having demonstrated his kindness and solid character (his education already being well known). The canon goes on to say that one ought not to be propelled boldly into a role – being little more than a neophyte. A neophyte being essentially unstable being overtaken by the typical “zeal of a convert” for a time and then . . . well we’ve seen what happens all too many times. I should mention here that this council was ostensibly a disaster with the Eastern and Western representatives excommunicating one another. What is interesting about this canon, though, is that it highlights the fact that eloquence, education, refinement, and resources do not necessarily equate to good leadership, setting the example of faithfulness, and the ability to be a locus of unity and wisdom in the sacramental community. What is also intriguing here is that it does not suggest that such individuals (who rather than wanting to be a bishop – seek to be a priest, or a deacon) cannot be ordained directly to their order (the ancient texts are funny that way – grin). Another anomaly here is the Western medieval and renaissance practice of “ordaining” noblemen to Episcopal orders – even though they never actually served in post – but delegated it (or not as was often the case) to another, while continuing to lead a totally secular life. The reasons for this were often rooted in political power, and wealth, rather than any concern for the function of the sacradotal order. These men were appointed and ordained through all the orders – never having any intention of serving in their appointed role. In the first anomly the concern is to ensure that the dignity of the office is maintained, with the second, that dignity is ostensibly set aside for “other” considerations.

    I’m sitting here considering the more interesting bits of the source material, and reflecting on what Tim and Michael have said – good points made in both cases – but asking myself the same question: if a lay person who has been a committed active member of the community for say 5 years or more is deemed worthy by the community (i.e. elected) – if we accept that this is the discernment of the community and the work of the Spirit – what impediment is there to ordaining that person directly to their order?

    I’ve got some other thoughts brewing too and will post those later.

  • http://www.inclusivecatholics.com Lyngine

    “If a lay person who has been a committed active member of the community for say 5 years or more is deemed worthy by the community (i.e. elected) – if we accept that this is the discernment of the community and the work of the Spirit – what impediment is there to ordaining that person directly to their order?” -Alexis

    Goodness, do you want to give lay people heart attacks!!!!

    Seriously, my answer (as the resident over-involved OC/IC lay person), is that one of the intrinsic and defining differences between laity and clergy is their relationship with the sacraments and the burden/challenge/responsiblity that comes with literally holding the sacraments in one’s own hands. It’s a different reality with profound implications and changes for one’s spirituality, vocation, and daily life. It’s not fair to the person or to the community to place that burden on someone without a transition period where they have some chance of grappling with the issues in a more gradual manner—hence, the minor orders and diaconate—before having the entirety of a priestly vocation and everything that goes with that dumped on their unsuspecting heads. It’s not just about the information and the ministerial skills—the part that gets people is the ontological change and the implications of that. I don’t know if Joseph will have a chance to chime in, but he explains it very well—-the gist of it is that once a priest, one never relates to anyone else in exactly the same way afterwards because of it. Not that one can’t be friends, etc but that there is always an additional layer that is present which does set priests apart. That’s not clericalism to say that—because it doesn’t make priests better—it just means there is something intrinically different between the way priests and laity relate to the world and to other people that defines and supports the individual vocations. *That’s* why simply ordaining someone to the priesthood or diaconate directly gives me nightmares—-I know that mainstream churches do this all the time, but the time in seminary and all the externals that go with it reinforce this preparation for ordination—with the reality of OC/IC life and the lack of external validation/reinforcement, it becomes really important that the interior formation and preparation for priesthood occur and have some structure and grounding—and I think the minor orders and diaconate are a good way to do this.

  • Alexis

    Ha ha ha – no, Lyngine, not trying to kill off the laity (far from it!).

    You make a very good observation though:

    the part that gets people is the ontological change and the implications of that. . . . . once a priest, one never relates to anyone else in exactly the same way afterwards because of it.

    God! Don’t I know it! I experienced this sense of “change” (though I’m not sure I’d call it “change” but it is certainly something) over the first year or so of having been ordained – and, oddly enough, again though in a slightly different way, after having been elected to the mitre. Having experienced this phenomena I can vouch for the fact that NOTHING prepares you for it. The experience is definitely at variance from the “theory” of ordination. I have observed over the years that no matter how much you prepare someone – that “change” affects everyone differently, and not everyone can hack it. I’ve seen this effect repeatedly in sacramental communities (regardles of tradition) over the years – including my own.

    Thus, it seems to me, that using the diaconate as a training ground for priesthood is not as effective as one might at first think. It seems to me that there will always be that element of surprise that affects everyone differently.

  • Alexis

    Tim has made an important point about the grounding of ordained ministry – and it is for this reason that his community requires a one year diaconate, and “significant time” in each minor order. Lyngine has made another valuable point about the “shock” factor of changing states of being – I guess is the best way to describe it. I think the two are related, but perhaps in a different manner than Tim or Lyngine envision.

    First, I think it might be helpful to talk about what we do in my community. For us one must first be Chrismated before even being considered for any formal role in the synod. This means that the person has to have spent time as a “participant” adjusting to the indie way, and the vision and values of our particular community. In order to be considered for ordination, one must have been a chrismated member for at least a full liturgical cycle starting with Pascha (which means for most a year and a half) – so already the individual has been an active, engaged, full member of the community for nearly 3 years before being considered for ordination. This means that they would have been involved in local projects, synod projects, and probably have held at least one elected office; giving them plenty of opportunity to show that they’re not afraid to get their hands dirty, and to demonstrate to the community as a whole that they are suited for ordained office. All of this in addition to having to complete our “Community Education Program” which covers, among other things, OC/IC history, and takes at least 2-3 years to complete. All together we’re looking at a minimum of four years of active service to the community, and a full appropriation of the indie life and identity.

    We chose to go this route because many of us had observed over the years that the shock of becoming indie was such that it could literally de-rail the ordained service of an otherwise good candidate – regardless of how much you tried to prepare them. As I said before, theory and practice are surprisingly different and not everyone is able to make that jump, that leap of faith. I for one have seen it happen too many times. We also realised that if we were to cultivate a sense of confident identity within the community most people are going to need a grounding in what it means to be indie – so we encourage everyone to undertake the “Community Education Program”. This has meant on a few occasions that as people begin to explore the history and ideals of the movement they realise its not what they thought it was, and its not for them – some of these have been individuals seeking ordination; while it seems sad at first, the reality is, their having come to this realisation early on, has saved them and the community more significant trouble later in the future.

    Tim is absolutely right when (indirectly) he says that there is a real need for ordination candidates who have a solid grounding in the faith, the tradition, and a complete investment in the life, vision, and values of the gathered community. I think, however, that there are other ways to do this, and that while using the minor orders is one of those ways, it is not the only one.

    What strikes me about the use of the minor orders for this purpose is that in my experience a significant number of people incorrectly associate progress through the minor orders with spiritual development, and personal spiritual progress. This means that it is not uncommon to encounter people who feel/believe that they “must” move forward towards ordination as an expression of their transcendance.

    It seems to me that by cultivating the community as a whole, and liberating the diaconate from the custom of minor orders one benefits from a stronger, more defined diaconal ministry, and breaking an existing bad cycle of bad theology and unhealthy approaches to spirituality within the OC/IC movement.

  • http://www.aihmfriars.org Joseph Augustine

    Since my name was called upon (thanks, sister) I shall indeed “weigh in.” So many points here to reflect upon, but I will try to make it relevant to the here and now. Suffice for me to see that there are historical good uses and abuses of the minor orders, and wide variances in history of how Bishop’s trained seminarians, but the minor orders are an integral part of a significant enough portion of that history.

    As +Tim stated, “I agree that quickly passing through all of the orders is an abuse — but abolishing them altogether would be a far worse abuse. ” Baby and bath water idea here. I agree with Tim.

    + Alexis states, “I have observed over the years that no matter how much you prepare someone – that “change” affects everyone differently, and not everyone can hack it….people incorrectly associate progress through the minor orders with spiritual development, and personal spiritual progress.”

    Proper preparation indeed should prepare one for the challenges and the ontological change that occurs at ordinations. If someone “can’t hack it” after ordination, then their Bishop did them a great disservice by ordaining them too soon, or even at all! The preparation is not a blue print, but a spiritual preparation to get them ready for exactly that change. Any monkey can learn rubrics, but it is the a/effectual that needs to be addressed.

    The minor orders, when done RIGHT and with PURPOSE, are exactly about this. One of our seminarians, recently ordained to exorcist, noted that in reflecting on this new ordination she became more aware of evil in the world and her call/ministry to combat it.

    When instructing doorkeepers I speak to them about the care they now have for being an instrument of inclusion, welcome, and hospitality, especially for those on the margins.

    The acolyte must learn that they are indeed the light of Christ and their lives and actions will be held up as examples for others to see. A time for people to really look at their demons and learn to throw themselves upon God’s mercy and grace in humility.

    Call the preparation what you want, but it IS the minor orders that are at the heart of spiritual preparation and thus are a nice springboard to the theological and practical applications of that spiritual heart. Thus I have to agree, from lived experience, with Lyngine that, “with the reality of OC/IC life and the lack of external validation/reinforcement, it becomes really important that the interior formation and preparation for priesthood occur and have some structure and grounding—and I think the minor orders and diaconate are a good way to do this.”

    I agree that all of the orders can and should stand on their own. Someone who wishes to “serve at the altar” should at least in theory be given the training of acolyte and even, yes, encouraged to be ordained to that ministry. Several times during solemn liturgies, I served as deacon at Mass. I can do that because I WAS ordained a deacon some years past. That “mark” is there forever. Priesthood was then added unto it, separate from it, yet also complimented by it. The deaconate should be encouraged as a separate ministry worthy unto itself, but that does not detract from my ordination as a deacon, even as I looked forward to priesthood. It was because I took deaconate seriously that I was able to adjust and weather the further and continuing challenge of priesthood.

    I think much of this is always upon the Bishop who trains and ordains. I am very happy with Tim’s program, our theology and practice of formation, and it seems to work well for us and our seminarians. Alexis, I encourage you to speak with our seminarians, and their own experiences. They have been for me, very enlightening and great re-enforcement of my own training. Very humbling experience to walk with these guys and gals!

    These desires to blanket policies for our tradition, or question each other with such particularism is one reason why I am glad for the INDEPENDENT part of our tradition, and why we shall always be many churches…the way I think the Spirit has prompted and by which the larger Body of Christ is enriched from us. LOL! :-)

Pages
 
February 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829  
Recently Scrawled
Holy Tweet!