You can be a deacon in the Anglican communion without being a priest. The tradition in the Anglican Church of Canada is that a candidate for the priesthood is ordained first as a deacon, and then serves as such for a year or so, and then is ordained as a priest.
There are also deacons who do not intend to be ordained as priests and do not have the academic qualifications to be ordained priests. They are, however, in holy orders.
There’s also archdeacons, which are an administrative position, not an additional Order.
Also true in the RCC, as mentioned briefly earlier in the thread. The diaconate is the first order in Holy Orders, and can be conferred in expectation of the recipient being a transitional deacon – a man who spends a year as a deacon before being ordained as a priest – or as a permanent deacon. Again as touched on earlier, the latter position is available to single or married men in the Roman Rite.
Confusingly enough, there is also such a thing as a “cardinal deacon.” This is not a high ranking deacon, but a low-ranking cardinal. More detail if anyone asks.
The easiest way I have of remembering which rituals are often performed by deacons is that deacons can “hatch, match, or dispatch”. Generally, deacons can perform the sacraments of baptism and matrimony (note they are officiating in matrimony) and often officate funeral services.
As other poster’s said, in a marriage, a man and woman “marry” each other; the (priest does not “marry” them, that would be awkward! ;))
In Catholicism, the priest or deacon is the official witness of the church. His job is to ensure that the man and woman properly exchange vows. He is a supervisor.
A quick breakdown of the sacraments:
Deacon:
Witness a marriage
Celebrate a baptism Priest:
Witness a marriage
Celebrate a baptism
Anoint with Chrism (Confirmation)
Consecrate the Eucharist (Communion)
Hear Confession
Anoint the Sick (Last Rites) Bishop:
Witness a marriage
Celebrate a baptism
Anoint with Chrism (Confirmation)
Consecrate the Eucharist (Communion)
Hear Confession
Anoint the Sick (Last Rites)
Consecrate new men as deacons, priests, and bishops. (Ordination)
Consecration of new clergy is performed by a repeating the sacrament of ordination 3 times. Each repeat confers new graces that allow the man to celebrate new sacraments.
Chronos, If I rememeber correctly I think that I was taught that matrimony was considered a sacrament of the dead, somehow this means that it purifies the soul and your soul starts from scratch as far as sin is concerned. Would this still be the case of a priest was not present and communion was not administred?
No, Matrimony is a Sacrament of the Living, meaning it may not be lawfully (Church law, not state law, obviously) be entered into while the person is in a state of Mortal Sin. If the bride or groom is in a state of Mortal Sin when she married, then they commit sacrilege, which is a bad thing.
Sacraments of the Dead are baptism, penance, and anointing of the sick. They can be given to a person who is still in a state of mortal sin. (If at all possible, a priest will try to get the person to confess and repent to save their own soul, but when it’s gotta be done, they’ll skip that part and get straight to the penance and anointing. And of course babies can’t confess and repent before baptism.)
“Living” and “Dead” refer to the soul, not the body. A person who commits a mortal sin is separated from God, her soul dead. (The good news is it’s only mostly dead. It can be resurrected and be again a Living soul.)
This has already been partially pointed out, but I must reiterate it, that only, only, only priests and bishops can hear confessions and anoint the sick, even in dire necessity!!!
I don’t know how common it is, but my daughter was confirmed 2 years ago, and it was done by a priest (a Canon, but still basically a priest). This was a perfectly routine, planned Confirmation of an entire year of her school, in a small town in Wicklow, Ireland, in the Archdiocese of Dublin.
There was no explanation given as to why a bishop couldn’t make it.
No, the main purpose is to keep a written registry. The reason to create parish registries and recommend that one of the witnesses of a marriage be a priest who would register the marriage in writing is that finding a piece of paper is a lot faster and easier than finding witnesses who may have moved or died. Since way back then, the priest might be the only literate person in a village and the church the most solid building, it made sense to have the priest be the person in charge of written records.
And at my friends wedding, they went with the full mass, planned and approved by the Bishop. But the Priest did the Eucharist thing by himself up in front, and did not offer to the congregation, because he didn’t personally approve of the marriage.
Why would you have your marriage celebrated by a priest who doesn’t approve of it? And isn’t performing the Mass but withholding it from the congregation a violation of Church law?
Just in case it needs to be stated, by the way, I defer to Bricker’s correction: A layperson cannot validly perform the two sacraments of healing.
Oh, and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the concept of “Sacraments of the Living” and “Sacraments of the Dead”. I guess it just never came up in my religious education. The classification we learned was sacraments of initiation, healing, and vocation.
Due to the dire shortage of priests, all sorts of Catholic activities and rituals that WERE almost always done by priests when I was a kid are routinely done by deacons or by laypersons now.
In Austin, at least, if you want your baby baptized by a priest, you’ll probably have to do it during a Mass. Otherwise, it will probably be done by a deacon. The baptism is perfectly valid if done by a deacon- a priest is not required.
A Catholic wedding is also a valid sacrament if presided over by a deacon.
Among the few priestly powers a Catholic deacon does not have are hearing confessions, performing extremunction/last rites, and saying Mass. A deacon can do several things during a Mass that laymen cannot (reading the Gospels, delivering homilies), but he cannot say the Eucharistic prayers that Catholics believe transform the bread and wine in to body and blood of Jesus.
If a Catholic wedding is performed by a deacon, there CANNOT be a Mass, because the deacon does not have the power or authority to say Mass. However, if a priest has already blessed large enough supply of bread and wine beforehand, a deacon CAN distribute Communion during a wedding service.
There’s that valid/licit distinction again. A baptism is valid if done by absolutely anyone. It’s licit if it’s done by a priest or deacon. If you perform a baptism and you’re not a priest or deacon, the Church might tsk-tsk you over it, but the person is still baptized. By contrast, if you recite the words of consecration over bread and you’re not a priest, the bread is not actually consecrated.
It sounds like (what was called 30 years ago) a “marriage before the altar”. When one spouse was Catholic and one had no intention of ever being Catholic, it was an “out” that allowed a “church wedding” without the pesky RC insistence that anyone receiving the eucharist be part of their denomination. After all, imagine the fuss if one spouse got Communion and the other didn’t - it would unbalance the entire service and rip the folds of both space and time. Marriage before the altar could be performed by almost anyone; in one case I remember a Protestant minister was even allowed to “co-officiate” with the priest.
Yes - a priest can refuse anyone almost anything. Marriages, funerals - my wife has even told me of people being turned away at communion. More common was (is?) for a priest to refuse absolution if he feels you aren’t actually sorry for your sins or properly repentant. In all these cases, he may have some explaining to do to his Bishop - but its his call.
The Code of Canon Law, Can. § 915, provides that anyone who has been excommunicated, interdicted, or who “obstinately persist[s]” in manifest grave sin, are not to be given communion. It boggles the mind, however, to imagine that the minister of the sacrament was able to make that determination about the entire group of attendees, unless perhaps they were all wearing “I (heart) Abortion” pins or something.
Under highly rare circumstances, yes. The last rites analog to the law I mention above is Can. § 1007, which provides that anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who obstinately persist in a manifestly grave sin. However, it’s almost impossible for me to imagine someone in grave danger of death, and who wants the anointing, and yet is is also “obstinately persist[ing] in a manifestly grave sin.”
Another possibility – again one I regard as unlikely – is that the man was not baptized, and the priest already knew it. Can. § 842 ß1 provides that a person who has not received baptism cannot validly be admitted to any other sacraments. This is not likely because the priest in question, assuming the man wanted the comfort provided by the Church, could baptize the man, which would be as efficacious – more so, in fact – than the anointing.
Finally, since the sacrament is conferred by literally anointing the recipient with oil, and cannot be validly conferred without the oil, I suppose it’s possible that the priest didn’t have any with him. As unlikely as that is, it’s at least plausible.
Can. § 1006 provides that the sacrament must be given to those who ask for it, unless there is a known reason (such as the possibilities above) not to.
At the local church of one of the parties, which she attended. In fact, I find it hard to imagine any other way – I’m thinking, you could get married somewhere else? By someone else? It’s part of the whole point of having a church, and a wedding. I mean I know it happens to other people, it just seems a very foreign idea.
