In our daily lives we all experience having little time for the Lord and also little time for ourselves. We end by being absorbed in "doing". Is it not true that activities often absorb us and that society with its multiple interests monopolizes our attention? Is it not true that we devote a lot of time to entertainment and to various kinds of amusement? At times we get carried away. Advent, this powerful liturgical season that we are beginning, invites us to pause in silence to understand a presence. It is an invitation to understand that the individual events of the day are hints that God is giving us, signs of the attention he has for each one of us. How often does God give us a glimpse of his love! To keep, as it were, an "interior journal" of this love would be a beautiful and salutary task for our life! Advent invites and stimulates us to contemplate the Lord present. Should not the certainty of his presence help us see the world with different eyes? Should it not help us to consider the whole of our life as a "visit", as a way in which he can come to us and become close to us in every situation?

Deacons: Whom do you seek in the manger, O Shepherds, do say!

Shepherds: The Savior, Christ, the Lord, the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, according to the angelic word.

Deacons: This little one is present with Mary, His mother. Concerning Him the Prophet Isaiah foretold: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son; say also, O Messengers, that He is born!

Alleluia, alleluia! Now truly we know Christ is born on the earth, sing, all people, say concerning Him: A child is born to us, a son is given, whose empire is upon His shoulders, and His name will be called: The Great Counselor!

Can 845 §1. The Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion is only the Priest
§2. The extraordinary is the Deacon, by the permission of the ordinary of the place or parish, conceded for a grave reason, which [permission] is assumed in the case of necessity.

Can. 910 §1 The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon.

§2 The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ's faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 §3.

230 §3 Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law.

• Is there any theological distinction between ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion?
• Is the concept of administering the sacrament a theological concept or a juridical concept?
• What does it mean to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion?
• Is it a sacramental action to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion?
• Does it require sacramental power to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion?
• Does a priest, at least, act in persona Christi in administering this sacrament?
• What is the role of a deacon in administering the sacrament?
• what of a layperson ordained/instituted as an acolyte?
• What of a layperson unordained/uninistituted?

administer Baptism solemnly [interestingly enough, the deacon is also the extraordinary minister of solemn baptism in the 1917 CIC], to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, in the name of the Church to assist at and bless marriages, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the sacred Scriptures to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside at the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, and to officiate at funeral and burial services.

According to Aquinas (IV Sent d24q1a2qc5sc1) if someone misses an order (All of which Aquinas holds imparts sacremental character) he can receive the order missed even after receiving a higher order. Could I, therefore, being ordained according to the Paul VI "2 orders fit all" method, later receive the orders missed, such as the order of exorcist??

St. Thomas Aquinas ([18861] Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 24 q. 1 a. 2 qc. 2 co.):

Et propter hoc alii dixerunt, quod in sacris ordinibus imprimitur character, non autem in minoribus. Sed hoc nihil iterum est: quia per quemlibet ordinem aliquis constituitur super plebem in aliquo gradu potestatis ordinatae ad sacramentorum dispensationem. Unde cum character sit signum distinctivum ab aliis; oportet quod in omnibus character imprimatur: cujus etiam signum est quod perpetuo manent, et nunquam iterantur. Et haec est tertia opinio, quae communior est.

My above quotation says that some people think only the major orders impart a character (because they are the only two whose office a layman cannot perform) , but the more common (and correct) opinion is that all of the orders impart a character, since all the orders constitute a man in some level of power ordained toward sacramental dispensation over the people of God, and, since a character is a sign which distinguishes one grade from another, it is necessary that all of the orders impart it.

But this whole question, from Aquinas' point of view, seems entirely academic to me, for, as he himself writes

(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 24 q. 1 a. 2 qc. 5 co. ):

et ideo etiam in primitiva Ecclesia aliqui ordinabantur in presbyteros qui prius inferiores ordines non susceperant; et tamen poterant omnia quae inferiores ordines possunt: quia inferior... Plures Legere potestas comprehenditur in superiori virtute, sicut sensus in intellectu...

and therefore even in the primitive Church some used to be ordained as priests who had not previously received the inferior orders; and, nevertheless, they were able to do all things which the inferior orders could: because the inferior power is understood in the superior power, just as senses in the intellect...

S.M., isn't that quote from the part of the Summa that was written by Paperno, not Aquinas? (By which I mean: I'm pretty sure it is.) I just wrote a paper on sacramental character, and all my Thomistic sources agreed that Aquinas himself held that only presbyteral ordination imprints character (which is kind of what it looked to me like he said ... Plures Legereanyway).

As far as the abolition of the minor orders, I am able to take some comfort in the ordination rubrics from the Statuta (which seems to be from the 5th century or earlier), in which all the minor orders are present and are clearly clerical orders to which a man must be ordained, but are set apart from the major orders by an explicit lack of the laying on of hands.

As to your actual question... I have no idea whatsoever. :)

I.S.w.D.o.P, NO. It is true that the same quotations from St. Thomas occur in Paperno's supplement, but he did not write the supplement, but rather took it from the Sentences. I know these are from the sentences, because I read them in Latin directly out of the sentences before I even looked at the supplement (which was word for word the same).

My problem with the sacramentality of the minor orders is merely this: that Regular Abbots could in some cases ordain in the minor orders.

I would like to study this further.

There are arguments on both sides. For instance, it is argued that exorcism is not a matter of pwoer, since every baptized Christian has the power to exorcise, but a matter of authority. Therefore, it might be said, there is no power conferred in the order of exorcist, but only an office that bears a certain authority. But this is contradicted by the fact that all exorcists ordained today are ordained without faculties, and thus their exorcisms are considered invalid. And if the office is that is bestowed, then it would make no sense for someone to be ordained exorcist but to not receive the authority to exercise his office.

I think the think that most settles the question in my mind is that none of the minor orders can be repeated. Even if a man gets married and his wife dies and he seeks the priesthood, he is not reordained. And yet he had no official office in the Church while he was married.

This, incidentally, is why I think it's likely that the ministries of acolyte and lector are participations in the sacrament of priesthood.

But this poses another problem, since the prayer over the acolyte asks that he be strengthed to give to the faithful the bread of life. It is understand that the acolyte (sadly) is a permanent extraordinary minister. Yet if the intention of the Church is to give part of the powers of the priest to the acolyte, as it is to the deacon, it stands to reason that the power of administering the sacrament in persona Christi would be part of the ministry of acolyte, and acolytes would thus be sacramental, if not ordinary, ministers.

You've studied this, I haven't Tell me the truth!

Too bad you didn't post this days ago! (Well, I wouldn't've seen it 'cuz I had suspended all facebook activity 'till I finished my paper. Shoot.) Anyway, this new information would've changed at least a paragraph lol.

As far as ordinations by abbots, my professor holds the interesting view that it is only presbyteral ordination that confers sacerdotal power (and it confers the fullness of that power). Episcopal consecration/ordination (the words are used interchangeably, signifying our own uncertainty of doctrine) confers only an ordering, a relationship - that is, the authority to use those powers. This, then, explains why papal permission was all that was needed to allow abbots to ordain their men. (It also explains why, in these new Anglican Personal Ordinarianates, the ordinary need not be a bishop.)

The sacrament of orders confuses me, because it is one sacrament for many (albeit related) things, with different forms in differing degrees... But if we hold to my professor's view that the sacrament is for purpose of ordering (and only sometimes for priesthood - that is, that the minor orders, while clerical, do not confer a priestly identity as such), combined with the traditional view that the character is a priestly mark, it would seem to give a completely logically consistent reason why the minor orders cannot be repeated even if they imprint no character.

It always confused me that one could engage evil spirits as an exorcist does without ordinary sacerdotal power. Just seems, well, counter-intuitive.

And, behold, my response!

• There is really only one sacrament, priesthood.
• This sacrament has many powers.
• These powers can be given to men who are not priests.
• The men who are not priests share in the priesthood of the priest insofar as they possess certain auxiliary but nonetheless priestly powers.
• These powers are auxiliary since they allow these men to assist the priest in offering sacrifice and celebrating the sacraments, but only allow them to do so as an extension of the priest and not as if they were priests themselves.
• There are traditionally 6 orders short of priesthood.
• Some argue that tonsure should also be considered an order.
• Others argue that only Bishops have the fullness of priestly power, and that priests are therefore a lower order than Bishop, with Bishop being therefore a separate order from priest.
• In the East there is generally only Subdeacon, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, although in some places lector and cantor are or have also been orders.
• The number and the powers of the orders are determined by the Church according to the needs of the time.
• There can, hypothetically, be as many orders as there are auxiliary powers attached to the priesthood.
• Priests, merely by virtue of having the priesthood, have all the powers of all the other orders, major and minor, insofar as they have all the duties of all the orders, major and minor (i.e. calling the sheep the sacrifice and sacraments, preventing those forbidden from participating in the sacred, expelling uncleanness and evil spirits from sacred places and sacred rites, blessing the sacramentals used for the sacred rites, singing the praises of God, reading the scripture readings, touching the sacred vessels, serving the priest as an extension of his priestly ministry, proclaiming the Gospel, administering the Blessed Sacrament, and suchlike).

1. Offices proper to the priest were gradually extended to "helpers" who were able to exercise special offices to aid the priest and as an extension of the priest. For this reason, although many of these offices did not require ordination, all of the offices required one to be a cleric.
2. Because of the lack of clerics and the gradual loss of the sense of these ecclesial ministries as permanent offices, lay people look over many of these duties (such as cantor, acolyte, and in certain cases subdeacon). They, nonetheless, were seen as "standing in" for clerics who were seen as acting as an extension of the priest, thus the proper role of the priest was maintained.
3. In recent times, due in part (but not completely) to a systematic attempt to change the Church's view of the duties of priests and the duties of laymen: to minimize that which is proper to the priest and maximize that which is proper to laypeople, the perception of certain ministries as being proper to priests and clerics has all but completely vanished.
4. The next step is build a consensus that these ministries are not (and never were) proper to the priest, but have always been proper to the laity and were at times usurped by the priests.
5. After that, they will attempt to diminish the offices that are most proper to the priest, especially the offices of offering Mass, celebrating the other sacraments, offering the prayers of the people to God, giving blessings, and, as I intend to argue, administering the Blessed Sacrament. IN FACT, EVERY ONE OF THESE THINGS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, AND SOME HAVE MADE THERE WAY INTO CHURCH DOCUMENTS OR EVEN OFFICIAL PRAYERS!


Please remind me. This is important to me. I don't have much time to do the research and to write it, but it is not only important TO me, it is important FOR me.

about all the things I said when I'm sleeping...when I'm dreaming...I've been thinking again...

I want you to know about all the times I let you down...I want you to know about all these things I said when I'm sleeping...when I'm dreaming...I've been thinking again...I want you to know...

Dear Brothers, in the decades following the Second Vatican Council, some interpreted the opening to the world, not as a requirement of the missionary zeal of the Heart of Christ, but as a transition to secularisation, seeing therein some values of great Christian density such as equality, freedom, solidarity, being willing to make concessions and find areas of cooperation. Thus one came to witness interventions of some Church leaders in ethical debates, which met the expectations of public opinion, but omitted to talk about certain fundamental truths of faith such as sin, grace, the theologal life and the last things. Unperceivedly many ecclesial communities fell into self-secularisation; these, hoping to please those who never came, saw leave, deceived and disillusioned, many of those they had: our contemporaries, when they come to us, want to see what they do not see anywhere, that is, the joy and the hope that spring from the fact that we are with the Risen Lord.

Currently there is a new generation already born into this secularised ecclesial environment, which instead of finding opening and consensus, sees within society an ever-widening trench of differences and oppositions to the Magisterium of the Church, especially in the field of ethics. In this desert of God, the new generation feels a great thirst for transcendence.

It is the young men of this new generation who knock today at the door of the seminary and who need to find educators who have to be true men of God, priests totally dedicated to formation, who give witness of the gift of self to the Church through celibacy and austere life, after the model of Christ the Good Shepherd. Thus these young men will learn to be sensitive to the encounter with the Lord, in the daily participation in the Eucharist, loving silence and prayer, and striving, first and foremost, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Today, as we take to heart the lessons of the current economic crisis, which sees the State's public authorities directly involved in correcting errors and malfunctions, it seems more realistic to re-evaluate their role and their powers, which need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today's world. Once the role of public authorities has been more clearly defined, one could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally and internationally, that have come about through the activity of organizations operating in civil society; in this way it is to be hoped that the citizens' interest and participation in the res publica will become more deeply rooted.

24. The world that Paul VI had before him — even though society had already evolved to such an extent that he could speak of social issues in global terms — was still far less integrated than today's world. Economic activity and the political process were both largely conducted within the same geographical area, and could therefore feed off one another. Production took place predominantly within national boundaries, and financial investments had somewhat limited circulation outside the country, so that the politics of many States could still determine the priorities of the economy and to some degree govern its performance using the instruments at their disposal. Hence Populorum Progressio assigned a central, albeit not exclusive, role to “public authorities”[59].