The minor orders must be restored!
#1
Someone1776 pointed to me a poll on Reverend Father Zuhlsdorf's blog about restoring the minor orders and first tonsure. Spread the word! Restore the minor orders! And, if you have an account on his blog, leave a comment on how the minor orders should not only be restored, but restored to the parish level (not just seminaries) as the Council of Trent decreed.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/first-ton...tprs-poll/#
Reply
#2
Voted yes. The abolition of the minor orders was yet another bad decision of the Papacy of Paul VI.

As an aside, I think an NFL player had a tonsure haircut last year. Not sure if it was Tim Tebow or not.
Reply
#3
One commenter posted this:
mitch_wa Wrote:I am all for a restoration of some of the minor orders, especially if we ordain men to these orders for purposes other than merely stepping stones to the priesthood. An established permanent(or semi-permanent) sub-diaconate would be a great addition to the church.

But nobody else has made this case. Somebody help him!
Reply
#4
Why do we need a permanent sub-diaconate when we already have a permanent diaconate?
Reply
#5
(09-17-2011, 12:12 PM)City Smurf Wrote: Why do we need a permanent sub-diaconate when we already have a permanent diaconate?

No idea what the difference would be. But the other minor orders (acolyte, lector) seem worth restoring as more than stepping stones to the priesthood.
Reply
#6
I might register an account later. I'm on my phone and at work now.

As for the permanent subdiaconate, the order of subdeacon wouldn't have been created unless it had a role distinct from that of deacons. Besides the liturgical functions, though, I'm actually not sure what role that would be. Might have to ask what the eastern churches do with permanent subdeacons.

As a general principle, though, "use it or lose it". The minor orders and subdiaconate got the axe partly because no one saw a use for them. Based on the pre-Vatican II practice, they almost have a point.
Reply
#7
(09-17-2011, 12:18 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Besides the liturgical functions, though, I'm actually not sure what role that would be. Might have to ask what the eastern churches do with permanent subdeacons.

I heard about (totally hearsay, but a cool story anyway) a Russian dude in the sacred vessels business who asked for (and received) ordination to the subdiaconate so that he could handle the vessels outside of the context of the liturgy (e.g. for cleaning, restoration and all that).

ETA: Russian Orthodox, that is.
Reply
#8

In the minor orders,  one could not be married I think?  But I believe the deacons in the NO can be.
Reply
#9
(09-17-2011, 03:40 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: In the minor orders,  one could not be married I think?   But I believe the deacons in the NO can be.

That's the way it's been practiced, but HK has pointed out that the Council of Trent actually called for the allowance of married men to accept minor orders. 
Reply
#10
Trent allowed married men to be ordained to the minor orders if necessary.

Married men may currently be ordained deacons. Although no traditional societies ordain married men to the diaconate currently, there are certainly married deacons who assist at FSSP Masses in the role of deacon, for example. A deacon is a deacon is a deacon.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)