This whole abstention thing seems very strange to me. What difference does it make to the efficacy of the Sacrament if you've recently had your breakfast (or tea)? The bread and wine are dealt with in your tummy etc. just as your bacon and eggs are dealt with...
One has to eat, in order to live - and those of us on lots (and I mean lots ) of medication generally need to take solid food first thing in the morning, and at regular intervals, to accompany our solid pills. AIUI, most churches allow some relaxation of the rules for those with medical issues.
But by all means abstain, if it's part of your personal piety. Just keep it personal (IIRC a certain Rabbi advocated this), and don't keep telling people 'O, I MUSTN'T eat before Marss', or 'It's Friday - I MUSTN'T eat meat, but I can pig out on meat-free pizza...'
I know, for instance, that the Antiochian church in some places has a custom of Vesperal Divine Liturgies. Does anybody know what happens in these instances as far as the fast goes?
In UK the Orthodox bishops of all jurisdictions have collectively set a rule of a minimum of six hours fasting before communion at an evening Liturgy. This was mainly aimed at parishes which have the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the evening during Lent.
It’s more about the ritual impurity of sex. The ritual impurity of women is covered in the rules about menstruation and communion (which, to be fair, are not universally accepted/ enforced).
Thanks, @Ex_Organist, for your comments, but the question remains - WHY?
(I don't mean to be obtuse - I just don't see the point).
It’s the same as any common church fast. It’s done to prepare ourselves, both communally and individually, fight the passions, keep our thoughts focused on God and the upcoming eucharist, etc.
Thanks, @Ex_Organist, for your comments, but the question remains - WHY?
(I don't mean to be obtuse - I just don't see the point).
It’s the same as any common church fast. It’s done to prepare ourselves, both communally and individually, fight the passions, keep our thoughts focused on God and the upcoming eucharist, etc.
Judging from the frequency with which He is invoked, some people seem to have no trouble keeping their thoughts focused on God during sex.
A joke that's probably been going around since the first Lent:
A penitent man decided to give up sex for the Lenten season. His wife was not informed of this situation, however. One the second night after Ash Wednesday, she showed some interest in relations. Rebuffing her advances he said, "I'm sorry, honey--I can't. It's Lent."
Angrily, she replied, "To whom, and how long?"
I wouldn't know about that (rebuffing ill-timed advances). I'm trying to focus on how great it is that I'm ready for Holy Communion just about any old time I choose. If only I could keep off the biscuits.
This whole abstention thing seems very strange to me. What difference does it make to the efficacy of the Sacrament if you've recently had your breakfast (or tea)? The bread and wine are dealt with in your tummy etc. just as your bacon and eggs are dealt with...
I don't think anybody would suggest that our usual nourishment contains a particular substance or acts as a conduit for some sort of force that has the power to negate the effects of the Holy Mysteries. That would be strange.
However, I would have thought it completely unremarkable to suggest that the spirit in which we approach the Mysteries potentially has an effect on their efficacy on our souls and in our lives. If we approach them with a sense of entitlement, or disregard for what they are, it seems to me that we are less likely to experience the positive effects of God's grace in the same way as if we approach them with an awareness of our sinfulness, our unworthiness to do so in our own right, and with awe at the immense love of God in making us worthy, the ability of God to overcome our attitudes with his grace notwithstanding (e.g. the actors mimicking Christian baptism prior to the Peace of the Church who were converted by the experience.)
Part of the traditional method of preparation is through prayer, fasting, abstinence, and regular confession. It is done before baptism, chrismation, the eucharist, ordination, and in some cases, even marriage. Perhaps there are some people who have reached such a state of spiritual maturity that they do not always need all of these things when approaching the divine Mysteries, and that is a matter for God, them, and their spiritual guide. However, my observation (and I speak here only of my observations within a tradition where these customs are observed and do not claim such boldness as to comment on those of other traditions), is that the more spiritually mature a person is, and the more a person grows in the Faith, the more they become aware of their need for these things.
What can sometimes be a challenge is trying to persuade people who have kept the fast for their whole lives and for whom it is an integral part of their spiritual discipline that they are now of a certain age and have certain physical needs that require them to eat more on Fridays, in Lent, and before Communion.
One has to eat, in order to live - and those of us on lots (and I mean lots ) of medication generally need to take solid food first thing in the morning, and at regular intervals, to accompany our solid pills. AIUI, most churches allow some relaxation of the rules for those with medical issues.
That's right. It's generally assumed that those with particular needs are exempt from the discipline of the fast. If someone needs some manner of food to take their medication, or simply to stop them from fainting, or if they are a pregnant or nursing mother, or an infant, or completely new to the discipline of fasting, then of course they should have the food.
Still, there's a difference between having solid sustenance to raise sugar levels or to line the stomach for medication, on the one hand, and on the other indulging in a massive Sunday morning fry-up every week. There is plenty of territory separating a strict fast from a Full English. Even with the allowances made for those with particular needs, it seems that it's still quite possible for people to find somewhere in that vast territory to set up camp, according to their circumstances.
But by all means abstain, if it's part of your personal piety. Just keep it personal (IIRC a certain Rabbi advocated this), and don't keep telling people 'O, I MUSTN'T eat before Marss', or 'It's Friday - I MUSTN'T eat meat, but I can pig out on meat-free pizza...'
Oh, I quite agree.
I think that anybody who has been properly instructed and entered into the discipline of fasting and abstinence should know that broadcasting their personal observance is the complete antithesis of the spirit of the fast.
There's more on this and the "why" of it all here.
In UK the Orthodox bishops of all jurisdictions have collectively set a rule of a minimum of six hours fasting before communion at an evening Liturgy. This was mainly aimed at parishes which have the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the evening during Lent.
@Cyprian - many thanks for your thoughtful and measured response!
I don't entirely concur with all of it, but appreciate the fact that the Orthodox Church(es) clearly take the subject very seriously.
You say 'Even with the allowances made for those with particular needs, it seems that it's still quite possible for people to find somewhere in that vast territory to set up camp, according to their circumstances.'
Maybe the rest of us could learn summink from that.
I've read somewhere that for the Day of Atonement, somebody who was deputed to sit up with the High Priest all the previous night talking to keep him awake in case he nodded off and in his slumbers infringed the Deuteronomy passage just cited.
I don't know whether that was because it would invalidate the whole sacrificial process for the following day, or because it would mean calling it off, and presumably admitting publicly why.
I've also understood that a rather more key reason than is usually admitted to for the RCC's adopting celibacy of the clergy in the middle middle ages was to enable daily rather than weekly mass. It was recognised that increasing the frequency with which clergy were supposed to abstain wasn't really compatible with being married.
I've read somewhere that for the Day of Atonement, somebody who was deputed to sit up with the High Priest all the previous night talking to keep him awake in case he nodded off and in his slumbers infringed the Deuteronomy passage just cited.
I don't know whether that was because it would invalidate the whole sacrificial process for the following day, or because it would mean calling it off, and presumably admitting publicly why.
I've also understood that a rather more key reason than is usually admitted to for the RCC's adopting celibacy of the clergy in the middle middle ages was to enable daily rather than weekly mass. It was recognised that increasing the frequency with which clergy were supposed to abstain wasn't really compatible with being married.
The Orthodox priest St John of Kronstadt rather infamously informed his wife on their wedding night that they would live as “brother and sister” citing similar thinking. In fact he had wanted to be a monk and only married at the insistence of his bishop. As for the wife, she was understandably ... annoyed.
Hmm. She may have had a hard life, nonetheless. St John doesn't seem to have been a particularly attractive character, at any rate by today's reckoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Kronstadt
Difficult to live with on any terms, I'd have thought - though his wackier followers may have had something to do with that.
I used to like getting up reasonably early and going to a 8:00 or 9:00am Communion service fasting, then go back later for Morning Prayer, but no-one seems to do that anymore, and I only got away with it back then because I lived in a cathedral city. Since I hit 45 hypoglycaemia seems to set in about 10:30am for me, so mid-morning Communions and fasting don't mix. I am certainly not "in love and charity with all men" by that hour if I have not had something to eat. I do like to leave a decent interval between eating and receiving/celebrating Communion - usually a couple of hours - but that it mainly a matter of personal comfort/discipline.
The Orthodox priest St John of Kronstadt rather infamously informed his wife on their wedding night that they would live as “brother and sister” citing similar thinking. In fact he had wanted to be a monk and only married at the insistence of his bishop. As for the wife, she was understandably ... annoyed.
I thought priests could only marry before they are ordained? Or was that the case for him?
The Orthodox priest St John of Kronstadt rather infamously informed his wife on their wedding night that they would live as “brother and sister” citing similar thinking. In fact he had wanted to be a monk and only married at the insistence of his bishop. As for the wife, she was understandably ... annoyed.
I thought priests could only marry before they are ordained? Or was that the case for him?
Right, I think it was a case of the bishop ordering him to marry before ordination.
The Orthodox priest St John of Kronstadt rather infamously informed his wife on their wedding night that they would live as “brother and sister” citing similar thinking. In fact he had wanted to be a monk and only married at the insistence of his bishop. As for the wife, she was understandably ... annoyed.
I thought priests could only marry before they are ordained? Or was that the case for him?
Right, I think it was a case of the bishop ordering him to marry before ordination.
Yes. There was at that time in Russia a rigid distinction between the "white" clergy who served in parishes and the "black" monastic clergy. To be ordained into the "white" clergy one had either to be married or to be over 40 and celibate (either never married or a widower from no more than one marriage).
St John of Kronstadt was a young graduate from the Theological Academy and so the only route to parish ministry was via marriage. He also followed the widespread custom of looking to get his own parish by marrying the eldest daughter of the current priest.
Yes. There was at that time in Russia a rigid distinction between the "white" clergy who served in parishes and the "black" monastic clergy. To be ordained into the "white" clergy one had either to be married or to be over 40 and celibate (either never married or a widower from no more than one marriage).
Has a rule like that ever existed elsewhere in Orthodoxy or in Christianity in general? It seems odd that any person would have to marry to be ordained. I suppose the reason was to lessen the risk of priests engaging in sexual relations and fathering children outside of wedlock?
Ordination into both the Anglican and Uniting churches here follow the ladder of first as a deacon and then a year or so later as a priest/minister. The school that I went to was then Presbyterian, but became Uniting when union occurred; in Dlet's days, the chaplain retired and was replaced by 2, one a minister and the other who made it clear that he intended to remain a deacon. He termed it as being a minister of word and service, but not of the table.
Yes, that's the distinction of which I was writing. At one stage there was a plethora of deacons in Sydney as the then Abp would not ordain a person priest unless he (still only he, alas) had a parish to go to.
Yes, that's the distinction of which I was writing. At one stage there was a plethora of deacons in Sydney as the then Abp would not ordain a person priest unless he (still only he, alas) had a parish to go to.
Having surplus deacons wandering around the place seems inordinately dangerous to me.
I know, for instance, that the Antiochian church in some places has a custom of Vesperal Divine Liturgies. Does anybody know what happens in these instances as far as the fast goes?
When I darkened the doors of the Antiochian Orthodox Church fasting for Vesperal Liturgies did indeed start at lunch. This was in Australia. Major feasts, Nativity, Pascha..., were also evening affairs and lunch was recommended to me as the time to begin fasting (with the usual exemptions for those who could not).
I have to admit that was an entirely intentional pun. In my defence I'm father to a 3 year old so I'm obliged to make terrible jokes at every opportunity. I think it might be hormonal.
Ordination into both the Anglican and Uniting churches here follow the ladder of first as a deacon and then a year or so later as a priest/minister. The school that I went to was then Presbyterian, but became Uniting when union occurred; in Dlet's days, the chaplain retired and was replaced by 2, one a minister and the other who made it clear that he intended to remain a deacon. He termed it as being a minister of word and service, but not of the table.
Did a bit of googling. I came up with this pamphlet. In which case the Deacon is in a totally separate order of ministry and part of this World Wide Family. The grew out of the Deaconesses orders from the late 19th Century and that Anglicans in Australia at least had some up to fairly recently. As the local Methodist Deacon put it they are called to the ministry of towel and bowl not book and cup. This would be totally in keeping with UCA's heritage which a transitional Diaconate is not.
Just to be sure, is it not possible for a minister of' 'towel and bowl' to feel that he or she is called later in life to be minister of 'book and cup' ?
It’s pretty routine in Orthodoxy for a priest-to-be to get ordained deacon and then priest a week later. Of course nothing beats the rise of Photius who went from layman to Patriarch in a week!
I don't know about Deaconesses in other dioceses, but the order continued in Sydney until the mid-80s. By and large, they were concerned with charitable work. Since then, the ordination is as a deacon. A man may continue on to ordination as a priest. We're still only in the early part of the 21st century, so it's far too soon to be thinking about priesting women.
Just to be sure, is it not possible for a minister of' 'towel and bowl' to feel that he or she is called later in life to be minister of 'book and cup' ?
(I like these expressions !)
I think it is and vice versa but at least in the UK both would contain an element of retraining to do the switch. They are intended to be separate but equivalent roles.
I should explain that the nearest URC equivalent to a Deacon is a Church Related Community Worker which gives a clue to the different skills that a Deacon would be expected to have that a Minister would not have.
Did the abstaining from sex part of the pre communion exist at all in the RCC in the past millennium? ...
There's a great scene in Sigrid Undset's trilogy "Kristin Lavransdatter," set in 14th century Norway, when a group of children are playing at baptism, using a piglet as the infant. Suddenly the boy playing the priest shrieks, "This child was conceived during Lent!" and calls off the ceremony. Shame and confusion ensue.
The child may well have been conceived on a red-letter day, or on a Sunday, or during a period of exemption from Lenten discipline as authorized by a confessor. Surely this is more likely to happen than a conscious breach of the practice of abstinence.
Yes, they are normally referred to as CRCW. I should stress that they are nearest equivalents, not true equivalents. There are differences and those mattered to me at least. I would have had a far harder time answering why I did not become a deacon than I did on why I did not become a CRCW.
Yes, I have only scant knowledge of the URC since I’m over in the States. I’m somewhat surprised that any mainline Protestant denomination would get rid of deacons, but I presume their theology must make sense? Does anyone know how common it is for mainline Protestants to not have deacons? And why this is the case?
The Book of Order of the PC(USA) provides that "[a] congregation by a majority vote may choose not to utilize the ordered ministry of deacons." In such cases, all functions of the deacons become the responsibility of elders and of the Session.
This permission to choose not to have deacons was first allowed maybe 20 years ago, and is primarily aimed at smaller congregations, for which maintaining both a board of deacons and a Session could be a challenge. A more recent change to the Book of Order allows for deacons to function individually rather than requiring they be organized into a board; I don't know how many congregations have taken advantage of this new flexibility.
So while the PC(USA) still has deacons, there are individual congregations (again, typically smaller ones) that do not.
That’s interesting. The diaconate at this point is an odd place to be for most denominations that use them, besides the Roman Catholics. Certainly in the Episcopal church, deacons are usually second career, older retired or semi-retired people. It’s quite uncommon to come across a young permanent deacon.
In my experience, Presbyterian diaconates/boards of deacons have typically been younger on average than the Session, partially because historically people tended to be elected deacons prior to being elected elders. These days, I seem to see more consideration of which is a better "fit" for and use of gifts of a particular person rather than the traditional deacon–>elder progression.
And FWIW, at my place, the board of deacons is actually larger than the Session.
A brief understanding of Deacon's outside of episcopalian settings.
The traditional stance in Protestant churches is to ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in a single step although at least the Methodist Church in Britain does have probationary ministers. I will let a Methodist explain what their status is.
There are three different groups of individuals who are sometimes referred to as Deacons with the term sometimes being applied without distinction to the first two.
Volunteers who look after the practical and charitable side of the church life
Volunteers (non-clerical) who provide recognised spiritual leadership within a local congregation. These are also sometimes referred to as elders.
Stipendiary individuals who are part of a diaconal orders. This grew out of the 19th Century Deaconesses which was largely an attempt to give women an authoritative role in the church which was not that of being a Minister of Word and Sacrament. As gradually more and more denominations started ordaining women the need for such roles ceased. In my denominations, they died out (URC included) but in others (Methodist in Britain, Church of Scotland) they morphed into a form of ministry often focused on community development and social outreach.
Options 1 & 2 cover a wide range of different organisational ideas. To give you one such we could look at one reading of John Calvin's which can give a six-fold pattern of ministry
Focus of Ministry
Status Church World
Occassional Apostle Prophet
Regular Minister Doctor/Teacher
Local Elder Deacon
All these levels can be ordained and it is common for people to hold a bi-vocation to two of these roles. The Elder and Deacon roles are rarely paid, the Ministers tend to be paid with the Doctor/Teacher role being a proper mixed bag (stidendiary, related secular employment, unpaid and any mix of those three) . Apostle and Prophet only arise in times of crisis (or chairos) and usually are bi-vocational and take their income according to the other vocation.
There are several thousand other ways that Nonconformist in England alone have interpreted the manner in which the Church should be governed.
If I remember my church law from the PC(USA) the way that that denomination defines a deacon is in line with what was one of the older uses of the Church of Scotland (and is still used in a very few CofS congregations) and what you find in Baptist Union of Scotland churches. The deacons are a court or a board and deal with temporal matters of the congregation. But what @Jengie Jon is referring to is the use of a deacon, also found in the CofS, as a paid (usually) pastoral worker for a congregation. Hence the term Church related community worker - though it would also work as community related church worker!
If I remember my church law from the PC(USA) the way that that denomination defines a deacon is in line with what was one of the older uses of the Church of Scotland (and is still used in a very few CofS congregations) and what you find in Baptist Union of Scotland churches. The deacons are a court or a board and deal with temporal matters of the congregation.
Historically, that is more or less correct, and it still is largely correct in some places. But there has been a move for the last 20+ to emphasize more the ministry of service and compassion. The Book of Order currently says:
The ministry of deacon as set forth in Scripture is one of compassion, witness, and service, sharing in the redeeming love of Jesus Christ for the poor, the hungry, the sick, the lost, the friendless, the oppressed, those burdened by unjust policies or structures, or anyone in distress. . . . Deacons may also be given special assignments in the congregation, such as caring for members in need, handling educational tasks, cultivating liberality in giving, collecting and disbursing monies to specific persons or causes, or overseeing the buildings and property of the congregation.
The specific vow taken by deacons at ordination (as opposed to the vows common to deacons, elders and ministers) is: “Will you be a faithful deacon, teaching charity, urging concern, and directing the people’s help to the friendless and those in need, and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?”
There’s been some talk of eliminating the transitional diaconate altogether, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.
If what you mean is ordaining people directly to the priesthood without, at the very least appending the ritual aspect of diaconal ordination beforehand in the same liturgy, wouldn't this be alarming to Anglo-Catholics?
First, Anglo-Catholics might worry about the validity of the Holy Orders of any priest who was not ordained deacon beforehand. Second, Anglo-Catholics might worry that any bishop who was not ordained deacon before being ordained priest would not have valid Holy Orders herself and therefore any priest ordained by that bishop might not be validly ordained.
Or am I not understanding the catholic understanding of Holy Orders? Are there churches in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy or other ancient churches that do not ordain priests to the diaconate before ordaining them to the priesthood?
I'm supposing this sequence of ordinations did not exist in the earliest days of the church but a move like this might even further widen the divide between the Episcopal Church and non-protestant episcopal churches, and I don't see any valid reason of fairness and equality for doing so (as there was with women's and LGBT ordination) other than signaling to permanent deacons that their ministry is more unique.
The traditionally formed amongst us would wet our chazzies at the thought of severing the great and wise tradition. We have enough problems with bishops (and presbyters) who have forgotten their primary diaconal call without removing that call from them altogether.
Comments
One has to eat, in order to live - and those of us on lots (and I mean lots ) of medication generally need to take solid food first thing in the morning, and at regular intervals, to accompany our solid pills. AIUI, most churches allow some relaxation of the rules for those with medical issues.
But by all means abstain, if it's part of your personal piety. Just keep it personal (IIRC a certain Rabbi advocated this), and don't keep telling people 'O, I MUSTN'T eat before Marss', or 'It's Friday - I MUSTN'T eat meat, but I can pig out on meat-free pizza...'
Normal rule would be from sunset the night before communion. Many people will observe a longer period of abstinence (usually three days).
Married priests will often sleep in a separate bed the night before serving the Divine Liturgy.
(I don't mean to be obtuse - I just don't see the point).
To me that speaks volumes about certain attitudes towards the ritual impurity of women.
Though ISTM we may be straying into the Place of Deceased Equines, for which I apologise.
It’s the same as any common church fast. It’s done to prepare ourselves, both communally and individually, fight the passions, keep our thoughts focused on God and the upcoming eucharist, etc.
I'll get me shroud...
I don't think anybody would suggest that our usual nourishment contains a particular substance or acts as a conduit for some sort of force that has the power to negate the effects of the Holy Mysteries. That would be strange.
However, I would have thought it completely unremarkable to suggest that the spirit in which we approach the Mysteries potentially has an effect on their efficacy on our souls and in our lives. If we approach them with a sense of entitlement, or disregard for what they are, it seems to me that we are less likely to experience the positive effects of God's grace in the same way as if we approach them with an awareness of our sinfulness, our unworthiness to do so in our own right, and with awe at the immense love of God in making us worthy, the ability of God to overcome our attitudes with his grace notwithstanding (e.g. the actors mimicking Christian baptism prior to the Peace of the Church who were converted by the experience.)
Part of the traditional method of preparation is through prayer, fasting, abstinence, and regular confession. It is done before baptism, chrismation, the eucharist, ordination, and in some cases, even marriage. Perhaps there are some people who have reached such a state of spiritual maturity that they do not always need all of these things when approaching the divine Mysteries, and that is a matter for God, them, and their spiritual guide. However, my observation (and I speak here only of my observations within a tradition where these customs are observed and do not claim such boldness as to comment on those of other traditions), is that the more spiritually mature a person is, and the more a person grows in the Faith, the more they become aware of their need for these things.
What can sometimes be a challenge is trying to persuade people who have kept the fast for their whole lives and for whom it is an integral part of their spiritual discipline that they are now of a certain age and have certain physical needs that require them to eat more on Fridays, in Lent, and before Communion.
That's right. It's generally assumed that those with particular needs are exempt from the discipline of the fast. If someone needs some manner of food to take their medication, or simply to stop them from fainting, or if they are a pregnant or nursing mother, or an infant, or completely new to the discipline of fasting, then of course they should have the food.
Still, there's a difference between having solid sustenance to raise sugar levels or to line the stomach for medication, on the one hand, and on the other indulging in a massive Sunday morning fry-up every week. There is plenty of territory separating a strict fast from a Full English. Even with the allowances made for those with particular needs, it seems that it's still quite possible for people to find somewhere in that vast territory to set up camp, according to their circumstances.
Oh, I quite agree.
I think that anybody who has been properly instructed and entered into the discipline of fasting and abstinence should know that broadcasting their personal observance is the complete antithesis of the spirit of the fast.
There's more on this and the "why" of it all here.
This is really helpful. Thank you.
I don't entirely concur with all of it, but appreciate the fact that the Orthodox Church(es) clearly take the subject very seriously.
You say 'Even with the allowances made for those with particular needs, it seems that it's still quite possible for people to find somewhere in that vast territory to set up camp, according to their circumstances.'
Maybe the rest of us could learn summink from that.
I've read somewhere that for the Day of Atonement, somebody who was deputed to sit up with the High Priest all the previous night talking to keep him awake in case he nodded off and in his slumbers infringed the Deuteronomy passage just cited.
I don't know whether that was because it would invalidate the whole sacrificial process for the following day, or because it would mean calling it off, and presumably admitting publicly why.
I've also understood that a rather more key reason than is usually admitted to for the RCC's adopting celibacy of the clergy in the middle middle ages was to enable daily rather than weekly mass. It was recognised that increasing the frequency with which clergy were supposed to abstain wasn't really compatible with being married.
OK, I'll get me coat.
The Orthodox priest St John of Kronstadt rather infamously informed his wife on their wedding night that they would live as “brother and sister” citing similar thinking. In fact he had wanted to be a monk and only married at the insistence of his bishop. As for the wife, she was understandably ... annoyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Kronstadt
Difficult to live with on any terms, I'd have thought - though his wackier followers may have had something to do with that.
Apologies for Tangent - Is Outrage!
And you for yours!
Yet he appears in the synaxarion/martyology and she doesn't.
I thought priests could only marry before they are ordained? Or was that the case for him?
Right, I think it was a case of the bishop ordering him to marry before ordination.
Yes. There was at that time in Russia a rigid distinction between the "white" clergy who served in parishes and the "black" monastic clergy. To be ordained into the "white" clergy one had either to be married or to be over 40 and celibate (either never married or a widower from no more than one marriage).
St John of Kronstadt was a young graduate from the Theological Academy and so the only route to parish ministry was via marriage. He also followed the widespread custom of looking to get his own parish by marrying the eldest daughter of the current priest.
Has a rule like that ever existed elsewhere in Orthodoxy or in Christianity in general? It seems odd that any person would have to marry to be ordained. I suppose the reason was to lessen the risk of priests engaging in sexual relations and fathering children outside of wedlock?
Having surplus deacons wandering around the place seems inordinately dangerous to me.
I have to admit that was an entirely intentional pun. In my defence I'm father to a 3 year old so I'm obliged to make terrible jokes at every opportunity. I think it might be hormonal.
Did a bit of googling. I came up with this pamphlet. In which case the Deacon is in a totally separate order of ministry and part of this World Wide Family. The grew out of the Deaconesses orders from the late 19th Century and that Anglicans in Australia at least had some up to fairly recently. As the local Methodist Deacon put it they are called to the ministry of towel and bowl not book and cup. This would be totally in keeping with UCA's heritage which a transitional Diaconate is not.
(I like these expressions !)
I think it is and vice versa but at least in the UK both would contain an element of retraining to do the switch. They are intended to be separate but equivalent roles.
I should explain that the nearest URC equivalent to a Deacon is a Church Related Community Worker which gives a clue to the different skills that a Deacon would be expected to have that a Minister would not have.
The child may well have been conceived on a red-letter day, or on a Sunday, or during a period of exemption from Lenten discipline as authorized by a confessor. Surely this is more likely to happen than a conscious breach of the practice of abstinence.
I'll get my coat...
Would my suspicion that they get referred to by an acronym such as CRCW be correct?
This permission to choose not to have deacons was first allowed maybe 20 years ago, and is primarily aimed at smaller congregations, for which maintaining both a board of deacons and a Session could be a challenge. A more recent change to the Book of Order allows for deacons to function individually rather than requiring they be organized into a board; I don't know how many congregations have taken advantage of this new flexibility.
So while the PC(USA) still has deacons, there are individual congregations (again, typically smaller ones) that do not.
And FWIW, at my place, the board of deacons is actually larger than the Session.
The traditional stance in Protestant churches is to ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in a single step although at least the Methodist Church in Britain does have probationary ministers. I will let a Methodist explain what their status is.
There are three different groups of individuals who are sometimes referred to as Deacons with the term sometimes being applied without distinction to the first two.
Options 1 & 2 cover a wide range of different organisational ideas. To give you one such we could look at one reading of John Calvin's which can give a six-fold pattern of ministry
All these levels can be ordained and it is common for people to hold a bi-vocation to two of these roles. The Elder and Deacon roles are rarely paid, the Ministers tend to be paid with the Doctor/Teacher role being a proper mixed bag (stidendiary, related secular employment, unpaid and any mix of those three) . Apostle and Prophet only arise in times of crisis (or chairos) and usually are bi-vocational and take their income according to the other vocation.
There are several thousand other ways that Nonconformist in England alone have interpreted the manner in which the Church should be governed.
If what you mean is ordaining people directly to the priesthood without, at the very least appending the ritual aspect of diaconal ordination beforehand in the same liturgy, wouldn't this be alarming to Anglo-Catholics?
First, Anglo-Catholics might worry about the validity of the Holy Orders of any priest who was not ordained deacon beforehand. Second, Anglo-Catholics might worry that any bishop who was not ordained deacon before being ordained priest would not have valid Holy Orders herself and therefore any priest ordained by that bishop might not be validly ordained.
Or am I not understanding the catholic understanding of Holy Orders? Are there churches in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy or other ancient churches that do not ordain priests to the diaconate before ordaining them to the priesthood?
I'm supposing this sequence of ordinations did not exist in the earliest days of the church but a move like this might even further widen the divide between the Episcopal Church and non-protestant episcopal churches, and I don't see any valid reason of fairness and equality for doing so (as there was with women's and LGBT ordination) other than signaling to permanent deacons that their ministry is more unique.