Were the
other minor orders conferred seriatim by the later Middle Ages, making acolyte
a record of being in minor orders?
Tom Izbicki
From: "John Briggs" <
[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]Sent:
Friday, November 4, 2011 8:50:44 AM
Subject: Re: [M-R] Minor
orders
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion
and culture
Acolytes could be married - it was just the most senior of
the Minor
Orders. (But that had previously been the situation with
Subdeacons.)
That doesn't explain why the ordination would need to be
recorded - but
neither does anything else that I can think of.
John
Briggs
On 04/11/2011 15:02, Rosemary Hayes wrote:
>
> It's
only a guess - and I hope one of the canon lawyers will step in
> here -
but could it be to do with incompatibility of sacraments? I
> believe
that if you were in major orders you could not marry and if you
> were
married you could not proceed to major orders. There were 'married
>
clerks' who never proceeded to major orders. Was acolyte the last
point
> at which you could marry or was it the point of no return - in
which
> case you needed a permanent record?
>
> From: "John
Briggs"
>>
>> Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong
way round. Perhaps we should
>> ask why ordinations of acolytes
*were* recorded. Is it "just" because
>> it was the most senior of
the minor orders? If so, what makes this
>> special? Was this the
sort of logic which led to subdeacon becoming a
>> major order? Would
the same have eventually happened to acolyte?
>> medieval-religion:
Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>>
>>
On 04/11/2011 09:49, Rosemary Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>
Certainly, my own work with episcopal registers has revealed
very
>>> little below the level of acolyte but then I have NEVER
come across
>>> the record of a confirmation. Perhaps both
confirmation and the
>>> orders below acolyte were conferred ad
hoc as the bishop (or his
>>> suffragan - and most had them in the
fifteenth century) moved around
>>> the
diocese.
