Was probably in the long run something with good intentions that was carried out badly. Now,unlike almost all the other Apostolic churches,the Roman church has no porters, exorcists,or subdeacons.The subdiaconate was even a major order,so I can't fathom why that was done. I think that perhaps a more logical, historical, and less devastating thing to do could've been to:
1) Preserve the subdiaconate.
2) Make the clerical obligations begin at the subdiaconate
3)Open the remaining orders to the laity, since they no longer carry clerical obligations.
If not,another could've been:
1) Preserve the subdiaconate as a major order
2) Make the clerical obligations begin at the subdiaconate, with possible dispensations for laymen
3) Title the remaining orders 'ministries' as in Ministeria Quaedam, with institution instead of ordination,but with the roles unchanged.
And whatever happenned to this?
"In addition to the offices universal in the Latin Church, the conferences of bishops may request others of the Apostolic See, if they judge the establishment of such offices in their region to be necessary or very useful because of special reasons. To these belong, for example, the ministries of porter, exorcist, catechist, as well as others to be conferred on those who are dedicated to works of charity, where this ministry had not been assigned to deacons."
Even that would've been better than now, as the acolyte now assumes the role of the acolyte andsubdeacon,the lector still exists,and we'd have porters and catechists.
2 comments:
Ok now I'm confused...
Because we are Roman Catholic, and we DO have exorcists... two in our dioceses and one more in training in Rome
I should've been more precise. Once upon a time, a long time ago,one could've been an exorcist without being a priest because being an exorcist was it's own order. Nowadays,we don't have that, because no one be be ordained an exorcist.(Because it's no longer an order like it used to be)
That's closer to what I meant.
Post a Comment