One More from Denysenko

The Most Pressing Question on the Diaconate

Frequently, important texts dictate the deacon’s exercise of ministry. Lumen Gentium authorizes deacons to preside at baptisms and the rite of marriage. The deacon reads the Gospel. Orthodox service books appoint certain texts and ritual actions to the deacon, so the deacon performs those specific roles.

The problem with the process is a lack of inquiry into ministerial gaps. The Church tends to view the priest/pastor as a minister of everything, except ordination. The priest/pastor not only presides, but is also expected to teach, preach, console, guide, heal, and pray. The administrative burden is heavy: represent, report, supervise, manage budgets, raise funds, and everyone’s favorite – lead meetings.

The seminary system sustains this model of the priest/pastor as minister of everything. Obtain competence in dogmatic theology and the fundamentals of liturgy, and then learn how to guide everyone and anyone through this life to God’s kingdom. Christians take this model for granted, and we shouldn’t mess with it, because parish vacancies depend on a steady supply of priest/pastors.

Should the deacon be prepared to assume the responsibilities for administration, especially with respect to finances, and almsgiving on behalf of the community? What other analogous duties are there to the original duties given to St. Stephen and others? Preaching the Gospel and perhaps teaching, or supervising the community's catechists. Whether it is necessary for the presbyter to have oversight may be up for debate, if the oversight is provided by the bishop (in the monoepiscopate model of church governance). And the question of the role of deacons should raise the issue of clerical continence, as we have already seen a debate on whether the current reality of "permanent deacons" in the Roman rite conforms to the norms of Roman Canon Law.

A properly formed deacon can share in the Church’s ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, consoling, praying, and administration. Online descriptions of diaconal service in Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches suggest that deacons and deaconesses engage service with breadth and depth. Most of us know what we cannot do – we cannot preside (unless a bishop or community asks deacons to preside for liturgies without a priest).

Why should deacons not be able to "lead" (not necessarily "preside") prayer or liturgical services that are not the Eucharist?

This notion of the sharing of the Church’s ministry is crucial. The priest/pastor presides, and much – not necessarily all of the rest – is shared with Christ’s body. It will be necessary to change the way we imagine ministry for an authentic renewal of the order of the deacon. The Church has to accept that deacons will anoint the sick, lead prayer, preside at some services (when a priest/pastor is unavailable), and represent the Church. Priests/pastors will have to learn to treat deacons as equals in Christ’s ministry – not as subordinates who are deficient in some way.

With regards to anointing of the sick, perhaps he is thinking that within Byzantine theology, the blessing of the oil and the physical anointing may be considered two different acts and the latter can be done separately by someone other than the priest. I have heard that this possibility has been discussed in Byzantine Catholic circles. But in such instances the anointing can done by even a layman? If so, then in an emergency when the presbyter or bishop cannot do it, why limit it to just ordained deacons? Just for the sake of appearances? In the context of a liturgical rite, what is the scripture or traditional justification for a deacon being able to minister holy unction? And if none exists, then how can it be justified that deacons but not laymen can do so in the case of emergency?

Are deacons "equals" in Christ's ministry? How so? Not with respect to some of their roles or duties. Presbyters may be expected to should some of the burden of administration if their communities do not have deacons. Deacons are collaborators in the building of the Kingdom, and they should be respected as such, but who has ultimate supervision of things pertaining to teaching? The bishop (or the presbyters). It may be that this sort of claim of "equal status" is tenable if one sees both presbyters and deacons as being subordinate to the bishop (which I don't think Denysenko would deny), but that is the monoepiscopate model.

Fr. Z's Opinion on Deacons

ASK FATHER: Are permanent deacons necessary?

An excerpt, but the whole is worth considering.

With the shortage of priests in these USA at least, one can see how having deacons who can help with Communion calls and so forth, sacramental prep, service at the altar for solemn worship is desirable. Frankly, I wish I had a couple of permanent deacons around whom I could train up for Solemn Masses. That would make my life a lot easier.

It seem to me that, while priests are existentially necessary for the life of the Church (e.g. Mass, confessions, anointing), and permanent deacons are not in the same way necessary (e.g. they do none of those), having them in service depends a great deal on both the urgency of the need and the quality of formation. That isn’t very definite, I know. First, every cleric ought to be well-formed.

We can’t do without priests, and so we can get on with priests who aren’t so sharp. But we can get along very well without deacons who aren’t so sharp.

Are they necessary? Well… it depends. It depends on if you want to work priests into their early graves and it depends on the level of formation.

Lastly, reception of Holy Orders means that there was a vocation from God to be ordained. We humans can and do get in the middle of that through formation programs, etc. However, God’s involvement means that if permanent deacons are necessary, then they are going, somehow, to be ordained, just as a flower finds purchase and manages to spring up in the crack of a sidewalk. I cannot pass any sort of judgment on God’s role in this matter of the permanent diaconate.

One of the first things that the Apostles did was choose men for the diaconate. That tells us something.

If the same conditions pertain in our day, deacons will be necessary for us just as for the Apostles. Circumstances play a role, and we can discern something of God’s will in the circumstances, as the Apostles did.

What role for deacons in the Latin churches?

Forget married priests - what changes would there have to be to make full-time deacons possible?

Pope Francis on the Question of...

Deaconesses. Or women deacons? Does he know the difference?

Understanding the Diaconate

A Traditional Understanding of the Diaconate?

Diaconia

Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church (4)
Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church (5)
Diaconia, briefly, again

Part 3

Fr. John Hunwicke: Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church (3)

Fr. Hunwicke Continues

Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church (2)

What is the diaconate?

Fr. Hunwicke: What is the Diaconate? and Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church (1)

Crisis: Women Deacons? A Matter of Authority by Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap

Chiesa: Francis and the Women. Homilies No, Diaconate More No Than Yes

The pope has reopened the discussion on the female diaconate, but has made it understood that he won’t do anything about it. And meanwhile he rejects the idea of having women preach at Mass

Handbook for the Diaconate

Eastern Christian Books: Female Deacons in the East

What has been the teaching and historical practice of the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox churches regarding deaconesses? I have read the claim that the Greek word for "ordination" or "ordained" was used without specifically referring to the sacrament of orders, but I don't know how true this claim is. (For that matter, what is the position of the non-Chalcedonian churches on clerical celibacy/continence?)

Symposium: THE NATURE AND ROLE OF DEACONS, OR THE FULLNESS OF PRIESTHOOD

The author advances the following:

"The bishop possesses the fullness of the priestly ministry, while those he ordains priest act vicariously on his behalf – analogous to being his hands at the Altar – and the deacons something more like his feet, as they go into the highways and byways in search of the poor and those in need."

So - is the diaconate distinguished by its ministry of works of mercy? Or, is it distinguished rather by their preaching? (the thesis advanced by another author)

I had forgotten what he was like.

Since he had been in the Roman Curia for so long but seemed to have stayed away from controversy during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. Or am I incorrect in this impression? Kasper Proposes Women Deacons

Deacon = Servant [of Works of Charity]?

Internet Archive: November 2006 issue of the Pastoral Review: Deacons and the Servant Myth by Anthony Gooley

It is frequently argued that the distinctive character of deacons is that they are servants called to the charitable and social justice ministry of the Church. The belief that service is distinctive of deacons is the servant myth. It is based on a false reading of Acts 6 and it has consequences for the way in which the Church receives the ministry of deacons. Breaking down this myth is the first step in restoring an authentic diaconate in the life of the Church. Anthony Gooley is a deacon and Ministry Development Officer in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia.

A proper understanding of what the order of the diaconate is necessary to address the question of whether there can be "ordained" deaconesses or not.

If we take the Greek text, as it is reproduced in RSV, we are able to construct a better picture of what is really happening in Acts 6.1-7. The Greek speaking Christians are complaining that their widows are being neglected in the daily diakonia. In Acts the diakonia is the proclamation of the Gospel.3 They are neglected for two reasons, the Aramaic speaking Apostles predominantly concentrate their proclamation in the Temple and the widows, who cannot comprehend the language and for social reasons are mostly restricted to the home, are overlooked in this daily diakonia. The solution proposed by the Apostles and agreed to by the whole Church is to appoint seven from among the Greek speaking community to do that daily diakonia in the homes of the Greek widows or as the expression in the Greek has it, to minister tables.4 Both the Apostles and the Seven had been entrusted with the same diakonia which is to minister or proclaim the word. To underscore this interpretation we see that Stephen immediately commences to proclaim the Gospel to the point of giving witness with his life (Acts 6-7.50) and Philip commences his diakonia of the word in proclaiming the Gospel, catechising the Ethiopian and baptising (Acts 8). The laying on of hands becomes the concrete sign that the ministry entrusted to the Apostles is to be entrusted to the Seven. The one thing we do not see the Seven do is charitable works or distributing food or funds to the widows, in fact we do not see anyone in the New Testament with the title of diakonos engaged in a specifically charitable service activity. This should give us some clues as we address the servant myth.

Would we have needed the development of the mendicant orders and their emphasis on preaching if we have a living, energetic diaconate at the time?

Related:
International Theological Commission - From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles (2002)

Fr. Z: Promoter of women “deacons” can’t speak in Archdiocese of Philadelphia

What if certain Orthodox Christians (and Eastern Catholics) began advocating the "restoration" of deaconesses? I think Fr. Z is too dismissive of the historical data, which needs to be addressed properly.

More from Ed Peters on Deaconesses

Further re female ordination to diaconate (via Fr. Z)

Some thoughts occasioned by Bp. Wcela’s essay on female deacons (via Fr. Z)

A canonical treatment of the question, not a theological response to the ordination of [female] deaconesses in the East and explanations of the practice current in Orthodoxy.