Talk:Catholic minister

Early posts

I am/was a Catholic and have never come across someone called a "deacon" in the Catholic Church. I am not saying they do not exist - but if they do they just cannot be particularly common. Also I have never heard the word "minister" used in the Catholic Church as a title or job description or as a word which groups a sets of jobs. So "Catholic Minister" as a Wiki page seems weird to me.

The writer(s) of this page say an Altar boy is a catholic *minister*. No, they have no formal training, they do not "minister" to anyone. They assist the priest during Mass - a few of my class mates were altar boys - it was more a chore, not a vocation!

No mention is made of Brothers (Monks) or Sisters (Nuns). The author of this page must surely think they are ministers if an altar boy is one.

Anyway, I think this page should go in favour of Catholic priest.

Psb777 14:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I you think that deacons are not commonplace in the Catholic Church then you are very ignorant. That does not inspire confidence in your other comments. In regard to deacons in the Catholic Church, see Holy Orders, and look at the canons of the Council of Trent, and at the online Catholic Encyclopedia, or any of zillions of Catholic web sites. Michael Hardy 20:22, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are deacons in the Catholic Church, both temporary (i.e. they will be priests eventually, but haven't been ordained yet) and permanent (for one reason or another, they don't plan to be ordained as priests).

"One reason or another" is usually that they are married men. Michael Hardy 20:25, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As for the point about altar boys, you're quite right: ministers, according to Canon Law, are those who may licitly administer one or more of the sacraments. That would include clergy and extraordinary (i.e. not ordained) Eucharistic ministers, but would exclude altar boys and non-ordained religious (monks and nuns). — No-One Jones (talk) 14:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what is the Wikipedia etiquette now? Can I just go ahead and edit away? And, forgive me, why haven't you? You know more about it than me. Psb777 13:37, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Edit as you see fit. — No-One Jones (talk) 13:48, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The term minister is not used commonly in the Catholic Church. Like deacon, these are titles which are more commonly used in the protestant Christian religions.

Visit your local Catholic Church and ask to speak to a minister and either you will not be understood or you will be pointed down the street to a protestant church or they will explain that this is a 'Catholic' church and ask if you would like to speak to a priest.

I am suggesting that we document the Catholic Church in terms with which it itself is familiar.

Psb777 03:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any Christian can baptize. So mention of the power of deacons (or that class of office bearers in the Catholic Church who would not readily identify themselves as such) to baptize has been removed.

As there are no unordained deacons, priests and bishops that word was removed too.

This misleading page is difficult to correct. I suggest we recognize this and replace it with a page which has links to the various types / levels of clergy in the Catholic church and have a page for each.

Psb777 03:57, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Catholics hold that even a non-Christian can validly baptize. But aside from the question of validity of baptism, there is also the question of licitness of baptism. Except in emergencies, only ordained persons -- deacons, priests, or bishops -- can licitly baptize in the Catholic church. Michael Hardy 01:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is nonsense to say the word is not commonly used in the Catholic church. Bear in mind that this assertion was made by someone who did not even know that deacons are commonplace in the Catholic church. I suspect that that person was most recently informed on these matters in about 1975. Michael Hardy 02:02, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A google search on the words "Catholic", "liturgical", "minister" (i.e., all three words but not necessarily in that order) suggests that it is commonplace to regard altar servers, lectors, and even ushers as "liturgical ministers" in the Catholic church. Many parishes have a "liturgical minister schedule" on their web sites. Michael Hardy 02:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Only in Psb777's comments on this article have I seen such a high ratio of confidence-to-misinformation. Michael Hardy 02:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Liturgical Minister" seems to be a polite way of saying Reader. It's like the New Zealand term for rubbish collector: Garbage Engineer. The Readers at Mass are usually lay members of the Church. A priest can perform that role but that doesn't make those who ordinarily do it office bearers in the church. Which surely is what anybody must think when Michael wants to use the term Catholic Minister for them. Michael at best is technically correct (but he isn't always) but he sometimes succeeds in creating a wrong impression, at least on this topic.

Altar Boys are not ministers. They are boys (and girls) reluctantly (for the most part) assisting at Mass. It's a bit like calling a kid who dutifully visits his sick aunt once a week a doctor. Altar boys do not administer a sacrament.

That some members of the clergy turn up sometimes at mass to do what an Altar Boy could otherwise do does not make an Altar Boy a minister either. It simply shows that Altar Boys cannot be persuaded to turn up for 6am Mass on a Monday.

That sometimes a member of the clergy does the 1st or 2nd reading does not make those who normally do it, lay readers, members of the clergy. Some of my school colleagues' friends fathers were regular readers too. But they were not members of the clergy, they had not had any formal training, they were certainly not ordained, or even blessed by the priest! I have even read at Church, once. Readers do not administer a sacrament.

Typically there is no usher at a Catholic service of any description except optionally at a wedding or a funeral. Once again, these receive no training, I have been one myself. They are not (usually or necessarily) members of the clergy. And they do not administer a sacrament. Not minister.

Psb777 05:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The type of page Michael Hardy is seeing must be like this: http://www.ststephenuni.org/liturgicalministry.html Note the Ministers of Music and the Ministers of Hospitality. Evidence enough, presumably, to include them in this Catholic minister article??? See my refuse engineer point above. Minister is just being used as a synonym of provider: It does not mean this is an official Roman Catholic Church job title. It just makes them seem important. It's nudge-nudge-wink-wink PR. Psb777 07:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have just used google.co.uk and google.com.au to search for UK and Aussie pages containing "catholic", "liturgical" and "minister". Very different set of results from doing so on google.com. The term "liturgical minister" is found only three times on UK pages and each time "liturgical" is used as an adjective, not as part of a complex noun. I think that now User:Michael Hardy must come up with some official Roman Catholic Church references to support his POV. Time to rewrite this page or to remove it again.

"Only in Psb777's comments on this article have I seen such a high ratio of confidence-to-misinformation. Michael Hardy 02:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)"

I wasn't perfect but Michael overstates his case. Psb777 07:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This official RCC paper from April 2004 explains some of the confusion. http://217.19.224.165/briefing/0204/april.pdf The USA Catholic Church has been trialling deacons for the rest of the church by permission of the Pope. But no mention of "Liturgical Ministers" as a compound noun is found, only one "liturgical minister" is found and the context is clear: No job is meant, rather it is a description of what the priest/deacon is doing. I think it is pretty clear: A lay person cannot be a liturgical minister. There is no mention of Ministers of Hospitality. This seems, once again, to be USA only.

At the very least the article should be amended to say it is USA-centric.

Psb777 08:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article now says in part, as it has for a while:

Lectors who read scriptural passages to the congregation are also among those called lay ministers or liturgical ministers.

Once again this might be a USA thing but I did flag this statement as controversial - and this flagging has been removed by User:Michael Hardy. Please, Michael, just state your source for Readers/Lectors being considered part of the liturgical ministry. And do so in such a way that we are not forced to conclude that the flower arranger is also part of the liturgical ministry.

Psb777 22:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now that this article is no longer giving such a false impression as it did when I first saw it (practically every word has been re-written, and every fact asserted has been modified) we are still not out of the woods. It is weird that for the Church where there are not members of the clergy called Minister and where no one is addressed as minister we have an article about Catholic Ministers, yet where Ministers are commonplace, where it is a position or rank in the clergy, where it is the form of address, we do not have an article: There is no Protestant Minister page.

Indeed, this Catholic minister page is not really about Catholic Ministers: It cannot really be about that without creating a false impression because even where they exist (USA only?) they are not addressed as such and they are not members of the clergy. The only way that this page can approach the truth is to talk about Catholic ministry or the conferring of sacraments. Where is the correct place to talk about the sacraments? On the already existing Sacraments (Catholic Church) page.

This page should be renamed to Catholic ministry or Lay Catholic Ministry (USA) and, depending which way we go, the then inappropriate content moved out to its rightful page.

Psb777 22:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Given this (I reckon information was intended not misinformation):

"Only in Psb777's comments on this article have I seen such a high ratio of confidence-to-misinformation. Michael Hardy 02:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)"

I feel bound by personal pride or some other unworthy notion to point out that the facts just do not support that assertion.

If anybody had bothered to tell me that this article belongs to Michael Hardy I would have asked permission before correcting it.

Psb777 23:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who comprises the Catholic, err, ministry?

From http://www.jknirp.com/stats3.htm and neighbouring pages:

Ordained Catholics	Worldwide	USA	%
Bishops	4.5k
Priests	405k	44k	11%
Permanent deacons	29k	16k	60%
Non-ordained persons in religious vocations
non-priest religious men (monks)	55k
religious women (nuns)	792k
cathechists	2.1m
non-ordained missionaries	100k++

But I don't think monks or nuns are ordained; see Holy Orders. Michael Hardy 20:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and now I've looked at that page, and there's nothing there that says nuns or monks are ordained. Michael Hardy 20:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Especially noteworthy are the number of nuns!

Note too that Deacons are found mostly in the USA.

non_US_deacons / non_US_Priests = 13k/360k = 3.6%

I wonder where they came from. Are they mostly Anglican clergy who became Catholics over the issue of women priests? Anybody know?

AFAIK, an Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism can retain his priesthood. There may be a rite of regularisation of some sort that has to be done; seems to me that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith once put out some kind of statement that said that those churches which have apostolic succession (Orthodox, Anglican), the ordination of their priests was "illicit but valid". One of the parish priests back home was originally an Anglican priest.

As for deacons in general, a number of churches I have attended here in Canada have had deacons. I must have attended those 3.6% churches! (To be fair, one of the parish deacons was a temp, I think - a priest in training).SigPig 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate home sought for all this info. The more I think of this, and as I have already said, I think this page should be moved to Catholic ministry, then

• who may give what sacraments under what conditions can be moved to Catholic sacraments,

• this page can be expanded to talk about the role of the nuns and monks, the cathechists (sp?), and the missionaries, as well as the relatively minor and USA-mostly lay "Ministers" (why not?)

• all the gumph here about what a Catholic minster is not can then be removed.

And then we can start a Catholic rabbi page.

Psb777 23:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would not object to "Catholic ministry" as the title. Some comments about how the word minister is used and how it differs from Protestant usage should probably still be included. Michael Hardy 02:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

References to lay minister in canon law

Lectors and acolytes are refered to as "lay ministers" in the motu proprio of Paul VI Ministeria quaedam and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Altar servers are refered to as "ministers" in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, both the 2000-ish version and the 1970 version. An altar server administers no sacrament and thus is not a sacramental minister, yet the altar server is still a minister according to the canon law just cited. Thus, there seem to be two canonical instances of minister: one is a liturgical function (acolyte) and the other is a sacramental function (minister of baptism). Essentially, both points put forth on this page are correct. This article, then, should retain both senses of the word. Pmadrid 06:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marriage

Should the terms for the individuals categorized as extraordinary ministers in the sacrament of marriage be more properly "husband and wife" or "bride and groom"? --198.59.190.201 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --liquidGhoul 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Catholic minister → Roman Catholic minister – In keeping with the name of the main article page (Roman Catholic Church), this article refers specifically to that denomination and not to churches in the Catholic tradition generally. Fishhead64 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Suport per nom. — Gareth Hughes 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This article has content issues that cannot be addressed by a rename. It seems to be in part discussing the very term Catholic minister - which would strongly argue against any rename. My first inclination is to merge with Roman Catholic sacraments and leave this as a redirect. Also, I googled "Catholic minister" -"Roman Catholic minister" -wiki; the context of the first few pages of hits seemed to be exclusively RCC, suggesting that the term itself is fairly precise. Also note that that search yielded 13,200 hits for pages using "Catholic minister" without using "Roman Catholic minister". A search for all pages using "Roman Catholic minister" yielded 136 hits (135 with -wiki). There is no confusion here. RC minister is an rare phrase in comparision. Gimmetrow 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I agree that there is a confusion about this article. This suggests that, even though the word minister is widely used within the Roman Catholic Church, there is no single definition of who is or isn't a minister. The addition of the adjective Catholic here is only meant to imply 'according to the Roman Catholic Church'. I am a Catholic minister in that I minister Catholic sacraments acording to Catholic rites and traditions: I am an Anglican priest. So, we could say exactly what it's all about and call it Concepts of ministry in the Roman Catholic Church, but, if that's too long-winded, let's have Roman Catholic minister. As far as Google hits go, I don't think they should be fundamental regulators of page names. What is popular isn't necessarily right. — Gareth Hughes 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Catholic minister" is a specific phrase used in a legal context (canon law) in the RCC. Google hits aren't the end-all of arguments, but this is approaching 100:1. This article should probably either address the specific phrase (and the canons involved) or be a redirect as I suggest above. Gimmetrow 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -SynKobiety 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I have a friend who is a Ukrainian Catholic Priest. He tells me that the Orthodox use the terms "uniate" and "Roman" as a slur to imply being traitors to the East. They would never call themselves "Roman Catholic," but members of the Catholic Church. It seems that Wikipedia honors self identification--and therefore should in this case as with others. Gimmetrow's analysis seems to show that the expression "Catholic minister" does not in actual use refer to ministers of other churches, though theoretically it may be correct to use Catholic minister to refer to Orthodox and Anglicans as "Catholic ministers." Still, this theoretical sense is very obscure and I am guessing that almost no one actually uses such phraseology (with the possible exception of small theological circles). The arguments about "Catholic" being ambiguous seem to be rather forced and obscure. --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This move is in direct violation of WP naming conventions and policies. For a thorough discussion of this and other related naming issues based entirely on WP policies, please see: CC vs. RCC --Vaquero100 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Catholic" may be ambiguous, but so is "Roman Catholic". Some people use the term to refer to all who recognize the Roman pontiff as the leader of all Christians and who are in turn recognized by him as being in full communion with the Roman church. This includes not only Latin-rite Catholics but also all of the Eastern rites. But some in the Eastern rites wish not to be called "Roman", preferring to reserve that term for Latin-rite (Western) Catholics. Michael Hardy 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine. If the parameters of the article are intended to be broad, then information from other self-identified Catholic denominations can conceivably be included. Fishhead64 07:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cheyinka 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Catholic Church article

This is clearly an article on the Catholic Church and not on other churches. No one who is looking for information on ministries in the Anglican church would come looking for it here. Please move such material to articles concerning Anglicanism.EastmeetsWest 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic has several meanings. Are you saying that the Anglican Church is not a Catholic denomination? The article on Anglicanism, citing introductory texts on the tradition, suggests otherwise. We've had this conversation before, elsewhere, ad infinitum, and the usual citation is of naming conventions, which state that self-definition is the key. If this is about the Roman Catholic Church, then perhaps the title should be changed. Fishhead64 06:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no beef with Anglicanism or Anglo-Catholicism. However, it is ridiculous to assert that someone looking for information regarding Anglican ministry is going to look up an article titled "Catholic minister." Also, the insistance that the article must change its name in order to pertain exclusively to the Catholic Church equally defies logic. The article is named for a technical phrase "Catholic minister." That term which is used in theological circles in the Catholic Church is as such and is not "Roman Catholic minister." As a term used in canon law and in other technical fora, it applies equally to Eastern Catholic Churches which are Catholic but are not Roman. I am a Ukrainian Catholic myself. I am a member of the Catholic Church but not of the Roman Catholic Church. We use the term Catholic minister and would never use the term Roman Catholic minister. It seems necessary to make clear that not every use of the Catholic is equally applicable to all Catholic churches. There is a difference between the Catholic Church and a Catholic church. EastmeetsWest 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if people are looking up 'x' here, they will find 'x', and the inclusion of 'y' won't affect that. And if the article read "Ministry in the Catholic Church," I might be inclined to agree with you. But, again, for the fullest explication of accuracy when it comes to catholic ministry, which by my definition is ministry of the historic threefold orders with the apostolic succession of the episcopacy, then Old Catholics, Anglicans, and independent Catholics of various varieties should be included, along with the Orthodox, if they choose since they also thus self-define. Exclusivity as surely determines a definition as inclusivity, and surely no one's ox is being gored by erring on the side of expansiveness, if erring we are. Fishhead64 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work on language clarifying that this article refers to a technical term used within the Catholic Church, but I am not willing to change the term which would completely defeat the point of the article. It seems necessary to say that not every use of the term Catholic is going to be a reference to Anglicanism. The Catholic Church is vast as well as vastly articulated in its theology, doctrine and canon law (far beyond any other Christian body). There are plenty of uses of the term Catholic that will not apply to Anglicanism. This is one. EastmeetsWest 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is an attempt to force the use of the term Roman as apparently has been done all over WP, you wont get far with me. I am an Eastern Rite Catholic under the authority of the pope but NOT a Roman Catholic. We have been through enough grief under the Orthodox and in becoming recognized as fully Catholic within the Catholic Church, that we dont need to be oppressed by Anglicans, too. EastmeetsWest 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact it's not - you may wish to re-read my last response and the alternative title I suggest. "Catholic minister" is a technical term, but is so in communions beyond the Latin and Eastern Rites. In The Gospel and the Catholic Church, by the Anglican divine and former Archbishop of Canterbury Arthur Michael Ramsey, Catholic ministry is defined in the terms which I have outlined (in the chapter "The Gospel and Episcopacy"). It is not inconceivable that an Anglican or someone else holding to such an understanding would look here for a technical definition. I would suggest, respectfully, that the onus is on you to demonstrate that they wouldn't since you are proposing the exclusion of material that some may be looking for rather than including information others may simply be uninterested in. Fishhead64 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I created the article, intending it to be about the term as it is used in the Roman Catholic Church. It seems to me that if we expand it to other churches that may be called "Catholic" or "catholic" in one sense or another, then it would include not only Eastern-Rite Catholics but also Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and quite possibly many non-Anglican Protestant denominations. The problem with all that would seem to be that there's no point in having an article on that unless it's about "minister" in a very much more general context, and that would require a separate article title, which probably already exists. If the present article title misleads anyone, perhaps someone should click on the "move" button. Michael Hardy 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, a split seems to be in order, which I think would satisfy the concerns of every constiuency. Such is the way of Christendom! Fishhead64 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Such is the way of Protestantism! As an Eastern Rite Catholic I subscribe to scripture. Catholics are those who, when others refused to believed the hard teachings of Christ, stand with Peter and reply: To whom shall we turn. You, Lord, have the words of everylasting life." Unity with the See of Peter is the test of the Christian Church. Twast always thus....ut unum sint!EastmeetsWest 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Michael. There is no need to change a thing. I have read up on this guy. He's a bully. Also learned that this artilce was voted upon and with no conclusion should stay as it was. That is as an article related to the Catholic Church without reference to other churches. This guy thinks that the Catholic Church always has to be preceded by "Roman," which is simply not true. I am a Catholic in communion with the pope, but not a Roman Catholic. That is who I am, can be no other and this guy was to shove me under the carpet.EastmeetsWest 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to come up with a disambig page to direct readers to articles on other churches.EastmeetsWest 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith! It isn't as though I took his suggestion and moved the page, which, I assume, could be construed as untoward. I have never done that with any page unless there has been full discussion and a consensus achieved, although it is something that has been done by others who take an opposite perspective from mine. And I have never claimed that "Catholic Church" should always be preceded by "Roman." Did I not say above that "Ministry in the Catholic Church" would be appropriate? I recognize that there are Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, all types of Catholics. My method has always been dialogue and voting, but I, too, will not have my tradition pigeonholed into a category of your choosing - which is as much shoving under the carpet as you accuse me of. I find your comments unfortunate, given the consensus I thought we had achieved elsewhere. Fishhead64 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are three opinions on content so far

If one reads the discussion in the above vote, there was a lack of consensus concerning the naming and content of this article, verified by the three different opinions we have seen in the most recent discussion. Clearly there are different views of what "Catholic minister" means, depending on one's tradition. Unless there are clear grounds to suggest that this isn't the case, either this article should be split into two, or its contents should be expanisve, but hitching it to the perspective of one group within the Catholic tradition is exclusive. Fishhead64 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please tell me how anyone looking for an article on Anglican orders would come to this article. I have ask you to do this before. You refused to engage that question. You have offered a name change, I'm fine with that. So, name change and disambig page. I hope that will be enough to stop your incessant need to see yourself reflected in every page on WP concerning the Catholic Church. I dont hold out that it will, though. You know, you have a way of making enemies.EastmeetsWest 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If I've been uncivil in my dialogue in any way, I apologise - but I don't think I have. I've been assertive in stating my views, as have you, but this is hardly grounds for enmity, is it? I would welcome an opprtunity to resolve whatever negative feelings I may have inadvertently engendered, if you would like to post a note on my talk page.

A direct answer to your question was offered above. Anglicans interested in the history and background of the Catholic threefold order of ministry and the apostolic succession of the episcopacy may look here for a comparative analysis, and will when I finally get an article on Anglican orders completed. Fishhead64 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)