@Colin Smith - it's a quiet afternoon, and I'm joshing you a bit whilst waiting for SOUP to boil......
Please go ahead, post as you wish, of course, but do be prepared to meet a certain amount of tangents/misunderstandings from others whose SOUP is also on the stove.....
There are some permanent deacons in the Uniting Church here - they are called ministers of the Word, while full ministers (that sounds derogatory but I can't at this late hour think of a better term) are called ministers of the Word and Table. Those of the word alone may take any but communion services but also do a lot of pastoral care work.
A few years ago, I met a permanent deacon in the Swedish church. It sounded as though the Swedish church has quite a lot of them, and they do social work.
Not to get Dead Horsey but I think in the CoE permanent deacons are associated with women's ministry before women were ordained to the priesthood - I think therefore people think of them as something that plugged a gap but aren't needed anymore. I think that's a mistake personally.
I have encountered lots of RC deacons, most RC churches I've visited have had them and they have also usually been married.
A few years ago, I met a permanent deacon in the Swedish church. It sounded as though the Swedish church has quite a lot of them, and they do social work.
Fast-forward to about 15:20 for the Gospel - AIUI, the lady concerned is a (now-retired) permanent Deacon. The Prayers of the Faithful are also led by a Deacon. Another Deacon is in the assembled clergy (IIRC, this was the principal service on Easter Day - in a not particularly huge parish, maybe 19000 in all - for what we would call a Team Parish in the UK, so doubtless it was a case of 'All Hands On Deck'!).
Not to get Dead Horsey but I think in the CoE permanent deacons are associated with women's ministry before women were ordained to the priesthood - I think therefore people think of them as something that plugged a gap but aren't needed anymore. I think that's a mistake personally.
I have encountered lots of RC deacons, most RC churches I've visited have had them and they have also usually been married.
That might have been the case some while back, but there are male permanent Deacons in the Cof E, as well as female. I also know of one Scottish Episcopal Church which has, in the past, enjoyed the ministry of permanent female Deacons.
I really don't think this is a sexist thing, but just depends on who is called to what ministry.
I've known many permanent Deacons in the Episcopal Church -- our parish is blessed to have two wonderful Deacons. Both happen to be women, but there are male permanent Deacons in this Diocese also.
Being a life-long Episcopalian, I don't know many R.C. clergy, but I did attend the Ordination of about a dozen permanent Deacons at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City about 40 years ago. (One of them was a co-worker of mine.)
The CofE might do well to encourage more peeps to be Permanent Deacons.
I can think of a number of Lay Readers, for instance, who, by virtue of what they already do as members of that particular Order, might well be of even better service to the Church as Deacons.
Thank you all...I've clearly been living under a rock these many years. Much appreciated; and rather heartening to see the presence of that particular calling.
There are still deaconesses in Sydney, although I think the numbers are dwindling. Deaconesses are not women deacons but a separate order primarily concerned with pastoral care work.
There are still deaconesses in Sydney, although I think the numbers are dwindling. Deaconesses are not women deacons but a separate order primarily concerned with pastoral care work.
That was the case in the CofE, where the situation changed, once OoW became possible. There may still be some deaconesses, but probably rather elderly by now.....
The CofE might do well to encourage more peeps to be Permanent Deacons.
I can think of a number of Lay Readers, for instance, who, by virtue of what they already do as members of that particular Order, might well be of even better service to the Church as Deacons.
This discussion seems to crop up quite regularly on the ship.
Leo 🕯 who was a Reader, and almost certainly had a higher take on Orders than I do, would not have agreed with you. If ever there was a Reader who, one would have thought, could have been a Permanent Deacon, Leo would have fitted the bill. He used to be quite emphatic about how important it was to him that being a Reader was a lay ministry.
My own query, is what 'even better service' would they give to the church as Deacons? Unless form is what matters to one, rather than function, why encourage them to be Permanent Deacons. It makes a person a cleric, but that hasn't given anyone exemption from any of the consequences of the penal code for centuries.
The only things a Deacon can do that a Reader can't, are to baptise, and in theory to conduct a wedding. However, as they can't pronounce the wedding blessing, dioceses don't approve of them doing so.
Besides, to most of the churchgoing public, the real distinction isn't about orders and clerical status. It is between who is on the church payroll, and who isn't. Most people think of the various sorts of non-stipendiary clergy as lay clergy. With the shortage both of money and full time clergy, the CofE isn't going to encourage people in any sort of notion that they can be paid clergy if they can't take Communion services and aren't really supposed to do weddings.
Valid points, @Enoch, and you are right about leo RIPARIG.
As regards 'extra duties' for a Blue-Scarfed-Menace-turned-Deacon, I suppose the obvious ones are, as you say, Baptisms and Weddings (point about blessing noted, however).
Reading the Gospel at the Eucharist is another, though this can be done by laity, according to Canon law.
There are all sorts of opportunities within the Eucharist for the Deacon to be, as it were, the leader of the assembly's response to what the priest says and does.
I'm not saying all such Deacons should be stipendiary, by any means, but we do have the example of the (very) early Church to show us what Deacons can do. They were AIUI called out of the early congregations, to serve those congregations.
These days, much of what used to be the Deacon's job is carried out by duly authorised, and trained, Evangelists, Pastoral Assistants, Lay Readers, Licensed Lay Ministers etc. etc. with various other terms according to taste Diocese!
I agree with BF. I mostly see deacons as indispensable for their role during the Eucharist, rather than their other duties, though those are still important to the living out of the threefold order of ministry. It's not two permanent orders of ministry plus a transitional one - there's no indication of the NT deacons being transitional. I just don't see the point of several different job titles when you could just have deacons as they are in Scripture who could do all those things. Certainly I know a lot of chaplains who feel diaconal ministry would be a huge part of chaplaincies if there were more permanent deacons. Also without deacons, who will wear a maniple??
@Bishops Finger, what exactly is it that the seven deacons in the Book of Acts do that requires them to be in holy orders? Or that requires leading the assembly's response to be done by someone in orders? That looks more like a role for someone who is not in orders.
Besides imposing such a regime on parishes just for the sake of fulfilling a dream of the way the church should be organised that some people have but most don't share, looks like the worst sort of dogmatic clericalism the original ecclesiastical sense of the word.
@Pomona what exactly do you mean by "indispensable"? Do you mean that a Eucharist isn't a real Eucharist unless it includes the involvement of a specific, separate person acting as a deacon? And is that prerequisite met if the 'second man' or woman is a priest - all priests and bishops remain deacons - or not in orders?
@Bishops Finger, what exactly is it that the seven deacons in the Book of Acts do that requires them to be in holy orders? Or that requires leading the assembly's response to be done by someone in orders? That looks more like a role for someone who is not in orders.
Besides imposing such a regime on parishes just for the sake of fulfilling a dream of the way the church should be organised that some people have but most don't share, looks like the worst sort of dogmatic clericalism the original ecclesiastical sense of the word.
Hmm. Perhaps I wrote rather hastily, feeling a bit grumpy about the multifarious titles for lay ministers in the CofE (and they differ ISTM from one Diocese to another). Our neighbouring parish has a Licensed Lay Minister, three Lay Readers, two Pastoral Assistants, an Evangelist (and, possibly, a partridge in a pear tree).
All the duties performed by these people could well be covered by the term 'Deacon', though, if baptisms/weddings were to be performed, then ordination would be necessary as things stand at present.
I note your point about clericalism. I think it's traditionally understood that the first Deacons were 'ordained' to that ministry by the Apostles, but those with more knowledge of 1stC Church history/practice will correct me if I'm wrong.
Deacon is an overused word. I can think of six overlapping but distinctive meanings in use in various churches.
Deacon as in an ordained liturgical role as in Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism
Deacon as in Reformed Church structure though not part of the five-fold ministry. These people look after charitable works, church buildings, finances, and very much a Martha ministry. You can see one denomination's take here
In English Dissent Deacon is often an alternative for Elder, i.e. the local people who have responsibility for the governance of the local church.
Deaconness as a vocational role for women, largely used when women were excluded from the ministry of Word and Sacrament
Deacon an alternative equal ministry to Word and Sacrament but related to community outreach etc see Methodist Diaconal Order. These are paid at the same rate as ministers.
Deacon is an overused word. I can think of six overlapping but distinctive meanings in use in various churches.
…
2. Deacon as in Reformed Church structure though not part of the five-fold ministry. These people look after charitable works, church buildings, finances, and very much a Martha ministry. You can see one denomination's take here
…
More in line with the three-fold ministry arguably, although in a Reformed context, the three-fold ministry would be expressed as Minister (of Word and Sacrament), elder and deacon.
No. Other churches are available. Not everything can be made accessible to disabled people and nor should it when doing so would detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled.
How would making a church accessible to disabled people "detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled"? What is the point of a church? What was one of the major foci of Jesus's ministry on Earth? Are we talking about a museum or a community of believers? Should someone who's a member of a disabled-unfriendly church have to find a new parish because of ill health or age?
No one is suggesting that all of the box pews should be removed, but surely it's possible to add some seating (chairs or space for wheelchairs) to allow most people to attend. Even Rocamadour has a lift to get people to its various levels.
...One does not have to be a parent of children to know that parents do not get everything right and are, in fact, incapable of providing anything but a narrow perspective of what is and is not important for an individual based on their own upbringing and experience. ...
...The topic extends way beyond religious instruction and into the role of education as a whole. Basically, my own experience of being a child and spending a decade or so getting over the limitations of my parents' values and attitudes (very non-religious but also very upper-working class social climbing, status-centred, middle-brow, non-intellectual and non-creative) has left me with strong belief that the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education should be curtailed to allow children to grow into individuals who are open-minded, informed, and able to accept, digest, and enjoy a greater range of life-choices. ...
The Chinese are ahead of you in terms of curtailing "the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education."
Other totalitarian regimes have had similar policies; it's just that the Chinese have better technology.
I certainly don't agree with every set of parents' childrearing choices (understatement alert!), but the thought of putting the government - any government - in charge of such basic human activity ought to give every thinking person the cold shudders.
...The topic extends way beyond religious instruction and into the role of education as a whole. Basically, my own experience of being a child and spending a decade or so getting over the limitations of my parents' values and attitudes (very non-religious but also very upper-working class social climbing, status-centred, middle-brow, non-intellectual and non-creative) has left me with strong belief that the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education should be curtailed to allow children to grow into individuals who are open-minded, informed, and able to accept, digest, and enjoy a greater range of life-choices. ...
The Chinese are ahead of you in terms of curtailing "the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education."
Other totalitarian regimes have had similar policies; it's just that the Chinese have better technology.
I certainly don't agree with every set of parents' childrearing choices (understatement alert!), but the thought of putting the government - any government - in charge of such basic human activity ought to give every thinking person the cold shudders.
It certainly does me.
I also have no belief that any government could be trusted to impose an education system that would encourage,
"...children to grow into individuals who are open-minded, informed, and able to accept, digest, and enjoy a greater range of life-choices. ..."
...One does not have to be a parent of children to know that parents do not get everything right and are, in fact, incapable of providing anything but a narrow perspective of what is and is not important for an individual based on their own upbringing and experience. ...
Chinese are ahead of you[/url] in terms of curtailing "the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education."
Other totalitarian regimes have had similar policies; it's just that the Chinese have better technology.
I certainly don't agree with every set of parents' childrearing choices (understatement alert!), but the thought of putting the government - any government - in charge of such basic human activity ought to give every thinking person the cold shudders.
Totally agree. I think there was a similar issue with the Kibbutz system which tried to take control away from parents. The idea that you grant sole control, to any individual or body is exactly what I'm arguing against. What I would advocate is some form of oversight of both parental and state/authority roles in education.
(This really isn't a liturgical matter, but Enquiring Minds Need To Know...)
That is the question and I don't know the answer. All I know from experience is that the present system (or at least that which prevailed in the Smith household circa 1961-1979) isn't ideal.
Deacon is an overused word. I can think of six overlapping but distinctive meanings in use in various churches.
…
2. Deacon as in Reformed Church structure though not part of the five-fold ministry. These people look after charitable works, church buildings, finances, and very much a Martha ministry. You can see one denomination's take here
…
More in line with the three-fold ministry arguably, although in a Reformed context, the three-fold ministry would be expressed as Minister (of Word and Sacrament), elder and deacon.
Reformed ministry is five-fold
Apostle
Prophet
Minister
Doctor
Elder.
The first two are occasional forms. The normal form of Apostle is Minister and the normal form of Prophet is Doctor. John Calvin held that Martin Luther was an Apostle. The deacon is an odd one because while recognised as an important role it is not actually included in Calvin's list of ministers.
Hint: The Reformed as a rule of thumb ordain Elders but do not ordain Deacons.
...That is the question and I don't know the answer. All I know from experience is that the present system (or at least that which prevailed in the Smith household circa 1961-1979) isn't ideal.
That the system that prevailed in your own household "isn't ideal" may well be, but that doesn't seem like a valid argument for dragging the State into private areas of child-rearing - such as religious instruction.
Deacon is an overused word. I can think of six overlapping but distinctive meanings in use in various churches.
…
2. Deacon as in Reformed Church structure though not part of the five-fold ministry. These people look after charitable works, church buildings, finances, and very much a Martha ministry. You can see one denomination's take here
…
More in line with the three-fold ministry arguably, although in a Reformed context, the three-fold ministry would be expressed as Minister (of Word and Sacrament), elder and deacon.
Reformed ministry is five-fold
Apostle
Prophet
Minister
Doctor
Elder.
The first two are occasional forms. The normal form of Apostle is Minister and the normal form of Prophet is Doctor. John Calvin held that Martin Luther was an Apostle. The deacon is an odd one because while recognised as an important role it is not actually included in Calvin's list of ministers.
I am familiar with traditional Reformed five-fold ministry. I am also somewhat familiar with how ministry has developed over the centuries in various Reformed bodies and in various places. That is why a drew a parallel with the second option above possibly being more in line with the three-fold pattern than the five-fold pattern.
Hint: The Reformed as a rule of thumb ordain Elders but do not ordain Deacons.
I was ordained a deacon in a Reformed Church over 30 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, all non-congregational Reformed bodies in the US ordain deacons—I know that all of the American Presbyterian denominations of any size at all, the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (both descended from the Dutch Reformed Church) ordain deacons in the same way they ordain elders.
Perhaps that is not the case elsewhere (though some searching on the internet leads me to think that deacons are ordained in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands). My understanding is that diaconal ministries in the Presbyterian Church of Canada are closer to the practice in the Church of Scotland than to the ordered ministry of deacons in the PC(USA). But in the US at least, the rule of thumb is that there are three ordained ministries: deacon, elder and minister.
The first two are occasional forms. The normal form of Apostle is Minister and the normal form of Prophet is Doctor. John Calvin held that Martin Luther was an Apostle. The deacon is an odd one because while recognised as an important role it is not actually included in Calvin's list of ministers.
I should have picked up on the bolded earlier. Calvin also identified four offices of ministry: pastor/minister, doctor, elder and deacon. In his Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), he wrote: “There are four orders of office instituted by our Lord for the government of his church. First, pastors; then doctors; next elders; and fourth deacons. Hence if we will have a church well-ordered and maintained we ought to observe this form of government.” (Granted, Calvin showed flexibility in exactly what the functions of the office of deacon looked like.) Meanwhile, the French Confession of 1559 (Art. 31) recognizes 3 offices: “pastor, overseer and deacon.”
In the Institutes (Book 4, chapter 3), Calvin speaks of ordination for all four offices, including deacon, for which the form is the laying on of hands. Of course, the laying on of hands was not used in Geneva, because Calvin thought superstition had grown up around the rite and so it would not be properly understood; it was reintroduced there sometime after Calvin.
I can't easily find stats for Anglican permanent deacons around here, although I know 2 in the Diocese of Montréal, and another 2 in Toronto. The local RC Latins have 86 in 107 parishes in Ottawa, and the small neighbouring semi-diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall has 18 (38 parishes); Pembroke up the valley has 13 in 48 parishes. Most of them are retired and married, serving more or less fulltime in parishes, but quite a few are younger married men and employed fulltime, often in admin or educational posts-- some of them serve as assistant chaplains in the RC separate school system. They now seem to do most of the marriage counselling spots, and I know two who work with hardcore homeless-- one had been recruited from l'Arche where he had worked for five years.* Here they have a coordinator and adviser in the local curia, and annual conferences and retreats (with wives).
Recently, the local Latin archbishop priested two permanent deacons who had become widowed, and were packed off for a two-year course to equip them. This interesting situation comes from the Latins' choice to only ordain celibate men to the priesthood, but it gives us some interesting ideas. One of my RC contacts foresees a near future where most pastoral work is done by married deacons and the priests (more and more from third-world countries) sprinting between altars.
*Jean Vanier, the founder of l'Arche, has just gone into palliative care.
@Augustine the Aleut 'One of my RC contacts foresees a near future where most pastoral work is done by married deacons and the priests (more and more from third-world countries) sprinting between altars.'
An interesting thought, and perhaps mirrored (to a degree) in the C of E in Ukland, where lay ministers (of various designations, but not necessarily married, and certainly of either gender, IYSWIM) do much of the day-to-day pastoral work, as well as taking Sunday services, especially in multi-church benefices.
FWIW, I'm not sure that this is entirely a Bad Thing™
@Augustine the Aleut 'One of my RC contacts foresees a near future where most pastoral work is done by married deacons and the priests (more and more from third-world countries) sprinting between altars.'
An interesting thought, and perhaps mirrored (to a degree) in the C of E in Ukland, where lay ministers (of various designations, but not necessarily married, and certainly of either gender, IYSWIM) do much of the day-to-day pastoral work, as well as taking Sunday services, especially in multi-church benefices.
FWIW, I'm not sure that this is entirely a Bad Thing™
It's not at all necessarily a bad thing, provided there is some training to keep them out of the mire, and it ensures that they have coalface experience for their work. If they are to be functioning as clerics, then the diaconate is a good slot for them, and provides them with greater support.
Then, if the world is as it should be, they would wear maniples. That would make this part of the thread a properly liturgical matter for discussion.
O quite. A Black Mark against our Father NewPriest is that it is not his custom to wear a Maniple.
Madam Sacristan, it is believed, has confessed to her Confessor her failure to persuade him to wear the Maniple. Whether the Masses Father NP celebrates are valid or not, I leave others to decide.....
All kinds of interesting modern chasubles, stoles, and other vestments and accoutrements are for sale, some of which are quite...interesting. I know there is no market for them, but wouldn't it be interesting if someone came out with some modern maniples? What would they look like?
How common is the custom of having choir members and altar servers (basically everyone in vestments other than the priest(s), deacon, and or subdeacon wear only a cassock with no surplice or alb at the Good Friday Liturgy? Is this only an Anglican thing or a Roman Catholic (current or historical) thing as well? Is it specifically an Anglo-Catholic thing? How old is the custom?
How common is the custom of having choir members and altar servers (basically everyone in vestments other than the priest(s), deacon, and or subdeacon wear only a cassock with no surplice or alb at the Good Friday Liturgy? Is this only an Anglican thing or a Roman Catholic (current or historical) thing as well? Is it specifically an Anglo-Catholic thing? How old is the custom?
No, it is not a specifically A-C thing; we have done that in both of the parishes to which I've belonged in a very Low Church diocese. We did it in the Biretta Belt, and at the Roman Catholic cathedral at which I sang for a while. (And in a lot of places, the clergy, lectors, and choir remove their surplices/cottas during the Maundy Thursday stripping of the altar and whatnot.)
We did have one GF service at Our Place, a few years ago now, where the priest insisted on wearing just the cassock, making the two servers do likewise. He said it looked suitably sombre, to mark Our Lord's death.....
Madam Sacristan objected, and the following year they were back to cassock/cotta for the servers, and alb/red chasuble for the priest.
At our place, it is 'custom and practice.' A Canon who usually wore the scarlet of a Royal Chaplain wore the same cassock as everyone else for those services.
Deacons were not ordained in the Presbyterian Church of England and I have not heard of them being ordained in Scotland.
Coming late to this discussion. Deacons in the Church of Scotland are an oddity. One of the strands that came into the union of 1929 was one which had deacons courts alongside the Session, and I believe there is still a miniscule number of congregations who run this system - maybe as few as 1 these days. Such deacons are, of course, not ordained, and mainly see to the "temporal" affairs of the congregation.
But then there is the office of deacon which is a trained and full time position - most often paid - who work in pastoral roles in a parish or group of parishes. Lately these deacons have had the option of being ordained, so that they can also help by administering the sacraments. I don't have to hand any information about how many have taken this option and how many have not (there are not so very many full time deacons to start with) but it is probably available if searched for.
Comments
For that you get a soupçon of soup song from the wonderful Tiger Lilies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knN6TXWOv0Y
I have encountered lots of RC deacons, most RC churches I've visited have had them and they have also usually been married.
So they do, but they get to do Liturgical Stuff as well:
[url][/url]https://youtube.com/watch?v=s6PA8CeGD0o
Fast-forward to about 15:20 for the Gospel - AIUI, the lady concerned is a (now-retired) permanent Deacon. The Prayers of the Faithful are also led by a Deacon. Another Deacon is in the assembled clergy (IIRC, this was the principal service on Easter Day - in a not particularly huge parish, maybe 19000 in all - for what we would call a Team Parish in the UK, so doubtless it was a case of 'All Hands On Deck'!).
That might have been the case some while back, but there are male permanent Deacons in the Cof E, as well as female. I also know of one Scottish Episcopal Church which has, in the past, enjoyed the ministry of permanent female Deacons.
I really don't think this is a sexist thing, but just depends on who is called to what ministry.
Being a life-long Episcopalian, I don't know many R.C. clergy, but I did attend the Ordination of about a dozen permanent Deacons at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City about 40 years ago. (One of them was a co-worker of mine.)
I can think of a number of Lay Readers, for instance, who, by virtue of what they already do as members of that particular Order, might well be of even better service to the Church as Deacons.
O yes - I think I may have misinterpreted. You are right, and I agree about the perceived 'lesser option'.
That was the case in the CofE, where the situation changed, once OoW became possible. There may still be some deaconesses, but probably rather elderly by now.....
Leo 🕯 who was a Reader, and almost certainly had a higher take on Orders than I do, would not have agreed with you. If ever there was a Reader who, one would have thought, could have been a Permanent Deacon, Leo would have fitted the bill. He used to be quite emphatic about how important it was to him that being a Reader was a lay ministry.
My own query, is what 'even better service' would they give to the church as Deacons? Unless form is what matters to one, rather than function, why encourage them to be Permanent Deacons. It makes a person a cleric, but that hasn't given anyone exemption from any of the consequences of the penal code for centuries.
The only things a Deacon can do that a Reader can't, are to baptise, and in theory to conduct a wedding. However, as they can't pronounce the wedding blessing, dioceses don't approve of them doing so.
Besides, to most of the churchgoing public, the real distinction isn't about orders and clerical status. It is between who is on the church payroll, and who isn't. Most people think of the various sorts of non-stipendiary clergy as lay clergy. With the shortage both of money and full time clergy, the CofE isn't going to encourage people in any sort of notion that they can be paid clergy if they can't take Communion services and aren't really supposed to do weddings.
As regards 'extra duties' for a Blue-Scarfed-Menace-turned-Deacon, I suppose the obvious ones are, as you say, Baptisms and Weddings (point about blessing noted, however).
Reading the Gospel at the Eucharist is another, though this can be done by laity, according to Canon law.
There are all sorts of opportunities within the Eucharist for the Deacon to be, as it were, the leader of the assembly's response to what the priest says and does.
I'm not saying all such Deacons should be stipendiary, by any means, but we do have the example of the (very) early Church to show us what Deacons can do. They were AIUI called out of the early congregations, to serve those congregations.
These days, much of what used to be the Deacon's job is carried out by duly authorised, and trained, Evangelists, Pastoral Assistants, Lay Readers, Licensed Lay Ministers etc. etc. with various other terms according to taste Diocese!
Besides imposing such a regime on parishes just for the sake of fulfilling a dream of the way the church should be organised that some people have but most don't share, looks like the worst sort of dogmatic clericalism the original ecclesiastical sense of the word.
@Pomona what exactly do you mean by "indispensable"? Do you mean that a Eucharist isn't a real Eucharist unless it includes the involvement of a specific, separate person acting as a deacon? And is that prerequisite met if the 'second man' or woman is a priest - all priests and bishops remain deacons - or not in orders?
@Enoch
Hmm. Perhaps I wrote rather hastily, feeling a bit grumpy about the multifarious titles for lay ministers in the CofE (and they differ ISTM from one Diocese to another). Our neighbouring parish has a Licensed Lay Minister, three Lay Readers, two Pastoral Assistants, an Evangelist (and, possibly, a partridge in a pear tree).
All the duties performed by these people could well be covered by the term 'Deacon', though, if baptisms/weddings were to be performed, then ordination would be necessary as things stand at present.
I note your point about clericalism. I think it's traditionally understood that the first Deacons were 'ordained' to that ministry by the Apostles, but those with more knowledge of 1stC Church history/practice will correct me if I'm wrong.
No one is suggesting that all of the box pews should be removed, but surely it's possible to add some seating (chairs or space for wheelchairs) to allow most people to attend. Even Rocamadour has a lift to get people to its various levels.
Other totalitarian regimes have had similar policies; it's just that the Chinese have better technology.
I certainly don't agree with every set of parents' childrearing choices (understatement alert!), but the thought of putting the government - any government - in charge of such basic human activity ought to give every thinking person the cold shudders.
I also have no belief that any government could be trusted to impose an education system that would encourage,
Totally agree. I think there was a similar issue with the Kibbutz system which tried to take control away from parents. The idea that you grant sole control, to any individual or body is exactly what I'm arguing against. What I would advocate is some form of oversight of both parental and state/authority roles in education.
(This really isn't a liturgical matter, but Enquiring Minds Need To Know...)
That is the question and I don't know the answer. All I know from experience is that the present system (or at least that which prevailed in the Smith household circa 1961-1979) isn't ideal.
Sorry to harp on this, but I hope you'll unpack it somehow (even if not in Eccles!).
I did say I'd post on it but got distracted. I will try to post somewhere. prob not in hell though! Got burned there.
But....be prepared for tangents, disagreements, misunderstandings etc. etc. (they're what we're good at).....
Reformed ministry is five-fold
Apostle
Prophet
Minister
Doctor
Elder.
The first two are occasional forms. The normal form of Apostle is Minister and the normal form of Prophet is Doctor. John Calvin held that Martin Luther was an Apostle. The deacon is an odd one because while recognised as an important role it is not actually included in Calvin's list of ministers.
Hint: The Reformed as a rule of thumb ordain Elders but do not ordain Deacons.
I was ordained a deacon in a Reformed Church over 30 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, all non-congregational Reformed bodies in the US ordain deacons—I know that all of the American Presbyterian denominations of any size at all, the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (both descended from the Dutch Reformed Church) ordain deacons in the same way they ordain elders.
Perhaps that is not the case elsewhere (though some searching on the internet leads me to think that deacons are ordained in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands). My understanding is that diaconal ministries in the Presbyterian Church of Canada are closer to the practice in the Church of Scotland than to the ordered ministry of deacons in the PC(USA). But in the US at least, the rule of thumb is that there are three ordained ministries: deacon, elder and minister.
I should have picked up on the bolded earlier. Calvin also identified four offices of ministry: pastor/minister, doctor, elder and deacon. In his Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), he wrote: “There are four orders of office instituted by our Lord for the government of his church. First, pastors; then doctors; next elders; and fourth deacons. Hence if we will have a church well-ordered and maintained we ought to observe this form of government.” (Granted, Calvin showed flexibility in exactly what the functions of the office of deacon looked like.) Meanwhile, the French Confession of 1559 (Art. 31) recognizes 3 offices: “pastor, overseer and deacon.”
In the Institutes (Book 4, chapter 3), Calvin speaks of ordination for all four offices, including deacon, for which the form is the laying on of hands. Of course, the laying on of hands was not used in Geneva, because Calvin thought superstition had grown up around the rite and so it would not be properly understood; it was reintroduced there sometime after Calvin.
Recently, the local Latin archbishop priested two permanent deacons who had become widowed, and were packed off for a two-year course to equip them. This interesting situation comes from the Latins' choice to only ordain celibate men to the priesthood, but it gives us some interesting ideas. One of my RC contacts foresees a near future where most pastoral work is done by married deacons and the priests (more and more from third-world countries) sprinting between altars.
*Jean Vanier, the founder of l'Arche, has just gone into palliative care.
'One of my RC contacts foresees a near future where most pastoral work is done by married deacons and the priests (more and more from third-world countries) sprinting between altars.'
An interesting thought, and perhaps mirrored (to a degree) in the C of E in Ukland, where lay ministers (of various designations, but not necessarily married, and certainly of either gender, IYSWIM) do much of the day-to-day pastoral work, as well as taking Sunday services, especially in multi-church benefices.
FWIW, I'm not sure that this is entirely a Bad Thing™
It's not at all necessarily a bad thing, provided there is some training to keep them out of the mire, and it ensures that they have coalface experience for their work. If they are to be functioning as clerics, then the diaconate is a good slot for them, and provides them with greater support.
Then, if the world is as it should be, they would wear maniples. That would make this part of the thread a properly liturgical matter for discussion.
Madam Sacristan, it is believed, has confessed to her Confessor her failure to persuade him to wear the Maniple. Whether the Masses Father NP celebrates are valid or not, I leave others to decide.....
Madam Sacristan objected, and the following year they were back to cassock/cotta for the servers, and alb/red chasuble for the priest.
Madam Sacristan's objection to the use of black cassocks, and nowt else, was simply because that was NOT the 'custom and practice'.
Coming late to this discussion. Deacons in the Church of Scotland are an oddity. One of the strands that came into the union of 1929 was one which had deacons courts alongside the Session, and I believe there is still a miniscule number of congregations who run this system - maybe as few as 1 these days. Such deacons are, of course, not ordained, and mainly see to the "temporal" affairs of the congregation.
But then there is the office of deacon which is a trained and full time position - most often paid - who work in pastoral roles in a parish or group of parishes. Lately these deacons have had the option of being ordained, so that they can also help by administering the sacraments. I don't have to hand any information about how many have taken this option and how many have not (there are not so very many full time deacons to start with) but it is probably available if searched for.