Talk:Holy orders in the Catholic Church

Definition of holy

"The word 'holy' simply means 'set apart for some purpose.'"

It does? Since when? The phrasing of this sentence seems to imply that this is the basic meaning or even the only meaning, yet it is not even listed as a definition in several dictionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.54.151 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Anglicans accept the ordination of most mainline denominations" is better said that Anglicans accept the ministry of ministers of most mainline churches. But before functioning as a Priest that person must be ordained by a Bishop of a Church (including Anglican) in Apostolic Succession.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.234.117 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the implication was that, in the phrase "Holy Orders", as used by the Catholic Church, the word "holy", in one of its senses, means "set apart". As it stood it was misleading, because there are other meanings, within the Church, and outside it, which are more commonly understood. I changed it, but I think it should be further clarified. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know the definition of holy but I know I felt it and it was a feeling of shame sadness and hate but at the same time i felt accomplished strong loved and fearless it was like my emotions couldn’t handle the purity of being close to the most high of holiest i know that makes no sense but I had a near death experience and I felt those things along with seeing unexplainable things happen like I was in a quantum world with in our reality. Student marcel (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues with one reference

The article now includes these sentences:

There is also a major study on the church (ecclesiology) being on the question 'What it means to be a church, or the Church?' It focuses on ecclesiology and ethics looking at the churches/Church's 'prophetic witness and its service to those in need'. [1].

This is a problem in a couple ways. 1) The Web page cited does not include the quoted text. It looks like that site has related, quotable material, though. The exact Web page should be used in the reference. 2) The way the sentences read, it's a little difficult to see what is intended to be an exact quote, and what the Wiki editor has paraphrased. 3) Using forward slashes is generally contrary to Wiki (and other) style manuals. Here, it's actually grammatically incorrect, because it uses the plural, then a singular possessive. 4) A more minor issue is that the quotation does not follow the quotation style used in the rest of the article, as a result, there are two footnotes labeled "1".

A footnote should verify the text, whether it's a literal quote or not. This link probably belongs at the bottom of the article, in a "References" section. As it stands, it reads like a plug for the book, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. The way to "get around" this is to find a quote from the book (or a concept from the book) which fits in the article flow -- that is, making a point that would make sense, even if there was no mention of the book at all. E.g., "A recent meeting of the World Council of Churches suggested that the traditional view of such-and-such should be expanded to include such-and-such."

Piano non troppo (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This was in the article from its creation in 2006 and cites:

There is nothing discussed about holy orders in the bare linked page or a sub page about ministry.

The quote is actually from "personal reflections on Faith and Order, written for the internet by staff members" and in context is:

What the church is and believes is intimately related to what the church does - to its prophetic witness and its service to those in need. Therefore Faith and Order works to understand the nature of the Church in relation to its life in and for the world. A collaborative programme with the World Council's Justice, Peace and Creation team

Nothing about Catholic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"During the rite of ordination, after the bishop the priest present lay their hands on the ordinands"

No. Only for the ordination of priests. Never for deacons and a fortiori for bishops. Furthemore, the essential part of the rite of ordination is done by the bishop(s)  : in the case of priests, the lying of hands by other priests is not necessary for the validity of the ordination. --Chilbaric (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

", but if an ordinary priest administers that sacrament illicitly, it is nonetheless considered valid, so that the person confirmed cannot be actually confirmed again, by a bishop or otherwise. "

The whole point is missed ...

First, the sacrement of confirmation, whoever gives it, use the holy oil consecrated by a bishop only. and when talking about confirmation, this is the first thing to say ...

Can. 880 §1. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred by the anointing of chrism on the forehead, which is done by the imposition of the hand and through the words prescribed in the approved liturgical books. §2. The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament.

Secondly, where is your source for such an affirmation, that the confirmation is always valid, even when a bishop has not commissionned the priest ?

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly. Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself: 1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop; 2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church; 3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter. --Chilbaric (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bishops, priests and deacons

I am not a Roman Catholic, so I may have to plead ignorance here, but I think I may have missed something when the article says that in the Roman Catholic church, there are three orders of clergy, and lists them, in decreasing importance, as bishops, priests and deacons. Would not the most important member of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church be the Pope? YTKJ (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There are three "fundamental" orders of clergy, and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. You can learn more on this page Hierarchy of the Catholic Church 93.35.68.60 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)