Barb and Fr. Deacon Carl Reid with Archbishop Prendergast
A wonderful day for us as Archbishop Terrence Prendergast ordained our former bishop Carl Reid to the diaconate.
In two weeks, the archbishop will ordain him to the Catholic priesthood.
Here are some pictures and the archbishop’s lovely homily.
Pictures may not be in order. I also have some videos which I will try to upload at some point so you can hear the sublime choir at St. Patrick’s Basilica. Pictures can be found also in the homily text.
St. Patrick Basilica, Ottawa, ON—January 12, 2013
THE DIACONAL ORDINATION OF
CARL LEONARD REID
[Texts: Numbers 3.5–9; Psalm 89; 1 Timothy 3.8–10, 12–13; Luke 12.35–44]
My dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
During a formal ad limina visitation I made to Rome with other Canadian bishops, Pope Benedict XVI presented each of us with a beautiful pectoral cross. It features a replica of a twelfth century processional cross found in the museum of the Lateran cathedral basilica that is striking for the many biblical images found on it.
The scenes represent family life and dreams, vocations and sacrifice, separations and the joy of reunion. We can indentify with many of these consoling sentiments on this important day.
At the centre of both the vertical and horizontal bars of the cross is a depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus, with his Mother and the Beloved Disciple being bound into the new family of the Church. The Risen Christ constantly says to the Church, “behold, I make all things new.” Among these things is today’s gesture of reconciliation that recognizes the spiritual leadership of Carl Leonard Reid. It also calls him to develop his gifts along a new dimension.
On this day, the liturgy commemorates our first Canadian woman saint, Marguerite Bourgeoys. We rejoice that family faith, vocational discernment, self-offering, and openness to the Holy Spirit have brought us together in celebration of the Eucharist.
The experience of family is at the core of each person’s life journey. I extend a most cordial welcome to the wife and siblings, friends and associates of our brother in Christ, Carl Leonard Reid. We give thanks to God for the way in which his family and friends nurtured faith in him, primarily but not solely in the Anglican tradition.
Carl, my son, your life up to now has been one of profound commitment and witness. Your formation and ministry within the Anglican tradition have provided you solid spiritual bedrock. You have been a bold witness to Christ and to the truths of Catholic Christianity–often at great cost to yourself.
Coming into communion with the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate, you bring with you the rich spiritual patrimony of the Anglican Church. Now, your ministry of bridge-building extends to creating bonds of friendship and communion between the Catholic Church and ecclesial communities of the Anglican and other Christian traditions.
In the Book of Numbers that we heard at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word, Moses appoints Levites to assist in the devotional life of God’s holy people. The role of Levites, as is the case with deacons, was to assist the priests and to perform duties for Aaron the high priest and for the whole assembly. They were, in effect, to help the people have access to God’s sanctuary. But they were also to set boundaries between the sanctuary and the camp, and to teach distinctions between virtue and sin to keep God’s people out of harm’s way. There is an order and harmony in the design of God’s creation. If proper teaching and practice are not instilled, then life and goodness suffer. Chaos and death ensue.
Beloved brothers and sisters: this, our son who is your relative and friend, is now to be advanced to the Order of Deacons, that is anticipated in the role of Levites.
Strengthened by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he will help the Bishop and his priests in the ministry of the word, of the altar, and of charity. He will be a servant to all. As a minister of the altar, he will proclaim the Gospel, prepare the sacrifice, and distribute the Lord’s Body and Blood to the faithful.
In addition, it will be his duty, at the Bishop’s direction, to exhort believers and unbelievers alike. He will instruct them in holy doctrine. He will preside over public prayer, administer Baptism, assist at and bless Marriages, bring Viaticum to the dying, and conduct funeral rites.
Consecrated by the laying on of hands that comes down to us from the Apostles, he will perform works of charity in the name of the Bishop or the pastor. With the help of God, his labour will be a public testimony of a disciple of the Lord who, as we heard him describe humble service in the gospel lection, came not to be served, but to serve.
As a Deacon, do the will of God from your heart. Serve the people in love and joy as you would the Lord. Because no one can serve two masters, in the spirit of the warnings Paul gave Timothy in the second lesson, look upon all defilement and avarice as serving false gods.
Like those chosen by the Apostles for the ministry of charity, you should be a man of good reputation, filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit. See your ministry of caring for the poor and needy as an extension of God’s compassionate mercy.
As Pope St. Leo the Great said so marvellously, “there is nothing more worthy of man than that he become an imitator of his Creator and … the executor of the divine plan. For when the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed and the sick are strengthened–is this not the divine assistance that the hand of the minister accomplishes, and is not the goodness of the servant the hand of the Lord at work? For when God finds a helper to realize his merciful touch, he so limits his omnipotence, that he alleviates the sufferings of man through the actions of men.” In your ministry, invite other disciples to enter into this outreach to the poor with you.
Firmly rooted and grounded in faith, you are to show yourself chaste and beyond reproach before God and man, as is proper for a steward of God’s mysteries.
Never allow opposition to turn you away from the hope offered by the Gospel. Now you are not only a hearer of this Gospel but also its minister. Express by your actions the word of God that your lips proclaim, so that the Christian people, brought to life by the Spirit, may be a pure offering accepted by God.
Then on the last day, when you meet the Lord face to face, he will say, “Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.”
I met Deacon Carl at the Portsmouth meeting. Please assure him of my congratulations and ask him his prayers for me.
What a wonderful celebration. Deborah, your photos are beautiful!
Deacon Carl! Can’t wait to see the photos for his priesting! Thanks for the photos, Mrs. Gyapong!
Pingback: Father Deacon Carl Reid! | Catholic Canada
Congratulations ! Wishing Bishop Carl a Blessed Ministry!
Congratulations to Mr. Reid (formal) or to Deacon Reid (informal). This ‘Fr. Deacon’ nonsense is of recent vintage and should be ignored. ‘Mr.’ is the correct prenominal; it is a venerable title and not one which most adult males properly used in the old days, back in the good times when a manager would simply address the men on the floor by the surname alone, with no title at all.
As for the flags in the sanctuary, they are anathema. Most Canadian churches don’t have them, thank God. The Vatican flag has no place at all in churches outside the Vatican City State, as it is the flag of a foreign country and not the flag of the Holy Catholic Church. The Church has a vexilloid, not a flag. It’s called the processional cross.
Everything else looked splendid. I look forward to Mr. Reid’s priestly ordination. He will soon, God willing, be the fourth priest in the Canadian Deanery.
P.K.T.P.
Wow, no need to be snooty. Just say “‘Mister’ or ‘Deacon’ is appropriate.”
There are no regulations of any kind governing the display of flags in Roman Catholic Churches. Neither the Code of Canon law, nor the liturgical books of the Roman rite comment on this practice. As a result, the question of whether and how to display a flag in a Catholic Church is left up to the judgment of the diocesan bishop, who in turn often delegates this to the discretion of the pastor.
It is discouraged, but it is anathema only when your bishops says so.
“This ‘Fr. Deacon’ nonsense is of recent vintage and should be ignored.”
Perhaps it is novel in Latin Christian practice (although addressing every priest as “Father” even in the Latin Church was a Counterreformation novelty), but it is, and long has been, standard practice in the Byzantine East.
I had no idea that the Anglican Use was part of the Byzantine East! But this too is an illusion. I have spent years worshipping in a Ukrainian Catholic Church. The truth is that it is yet another example of ‘orientalisation’. If you went back to the 1950s and earlier, you would find that, no, it was not used among Ukrainian Catholics, who had been Romanised for some centuries by then. Similarly, Ukr. Catholics prayed the Rosary and had holy water fonts and so forth. This is, in fact, more aping of the Orthodox.
P.K.T.P.
To Mr. Perkins,
When in Rome, do as the Romans; when in Kiev, do as the Kievans.
I’d think the Church can be large enough to accommodate some venerable, ancient traditions within her.
Orientalization is appropriate in the Orient. Didn’t you know that the Roman Church originally used Greek? (The Apostles who spread the faith to Rome were Hellenized Jews!) But there has been some recognition of the merits of Latin by the Roman Emperors, so we have our Roman Patrimony.
What you should be troubled by, Mr. Perkins, is Msgr. Steenson’s pronouncement of the traditional Latin Mass as having no connection with the Anglican Patrimony. On some level, he’s right. But on some deeper level, people tend to disagree. But whatever, we’re all Catholics- we’ll let this be settled over time, I suppose.
Peter,
‘Mr.’ is the correct prenominal; it is a venerable title and not one which most adult males properly used in the old days, back in the good times when a manager would simply address the men on the floor by the surname alone, with no title at all.
Historically, you are correct. In colonial times, the typical subject of the British monarch was a “Goodman” or “Goodwoman” and the titles of Mister (Mr.), Mistress (Mrs.), and Miss were reserved for the lesser gentry who had full rights of citizenship but not titles of actual nobility and the feminist “Ms.” formed as an attempted hybrid of “Mrs.” and “Miss” simply did not exist. The less formal “Sir” and “Madam” (or “Ma’am”) were also proper forms of address only for lesser nobility and gentry. But here in the States, our Declaration of Independence elevated all free persons to that status, making these titles universal. Where similar elevation has occurred in other countries, the forms of address typically have followed.
The practice that you describe in terms of forms of address in the workplace generally persists in the armed forces. Here in the States, junior enlisted members are addressed by surname alone and the titles of Mister, Mistress, and Miss are reserved for (1) Warrant Officers and Chief Warrant Officers, (2) Midshipmen of the Navy and the Marine Corps, and (3) commissioned officers of the Navy and the Coast Guard of rank below Commander. Senior enlisted personnel are typically addressed by their rank or rate, without a surname unless its omission would create ambiguity (for example, “Master Seargent” or “Chief”), while commissioned officers of the Navy and the Coast Guard of all ranks above Lieutenant Commander and all commissioned officers of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force are properly addressed by their military rank. Additionally, “Sir” and “Ma’am” are proper as less formal forms of address only for those who hold officer ranks (that is, for warrant officers, midshipmen, chief warrant officers, and commissioned officers), and for senior enlisted personnel who are actually standing an officer’s watch or duty station.
Norm.
As usual, Norm throws in all sorts of irrelevant points. The abolition of knighthoods, baronetages and peerages in the U.S.A. had no effect on other forms of address. For example, this intrusive idea of addressing strangers by their first names was unknown until very recently. I have even been addressed by my first name now even by bank clerks. It is apparently new banking policy. I don’t put up with it. I just feels wrong. It would be different if the clerk were an old friend or had been present at several of my birthday parties.
I found when I moved to B.C. from Ontario that the problem is worse in the West. The first-naming is completely out of control out here. I find it to be really offensive when a total stranger address me that way. One gets the feeling that someone is trying to elbow himself into your personal life.
P.K.T.P.
To Mr. Perkins, (See what I did there?)
With regards to first names, wouldn’t it be more irritating if some young person unknown to you started calling you “Hey, Petey!”? I too am irritated when I call someone “Mr. So-and-so” and they say “Mr. So-and-so is my father, call me Steve.”
It’s like… Are they trying to be young and hip? Or ironic?
It’s symptomatic of the spirit of the time, sir. A time when you’re a common, banal Steve, no different from Matt or Pat or Chris. It doesn’t matter if you’re older and more experienced, or a master of a craft- the moment you call someone “Sir” or “Ma’am” or “Mr./Mrs./Ms.” you will garner some offended looks.
I really hate this.
Ioannes,
You wrote: It’s like… Are they trying to be young and hip? Or ironic?
Psychologically, the need to be addressed formally is typically a manifestation of personal insecurity and lack of self-respect on the part of the person who makes the demand. I have never known informality to be a problem in situations in which people respect one another and relationships are clear.
Of course, it is always appropriate to insist upon following protocol in situations for which formality is mandatory.
Norm.
Norm,
you wrote: “Psychologically, the need to be addressed formally is typically a manifestation of personal insecurity and lack of self-respect on the part of the person who makes the demand. I have never known informality to be a problem in situations in which people respect one another and relationships are clear.”
I was talking about their need to be informal as something irritating. My experience is school, particularly with Art teachers, they insist you call them by their first name, as if they’re your egalitarian “friend” but then insist they are a figure of superior authority.
What a generalization it is in ascribing the psychological need for propriety of formal address to insecurity and lack of self-respect! Maybe it’s true to some degree, but we’re talking about strangers here. I mean, we can all agree that when your 20-year-old son or well-known childhood friend you grew up with and suffered the same hardships together and confided with suddenly -demand- that you call him “Mr. So-and-so.” he’s certifiably gone mental.
But in more “liberal” places, these terms of courtesy and etiquette are being forgotten.
In Los Angeles, when people describe themselves to be your “friend”, it’s nothing short of suspicious, because they are, in fact, strangers. Strangers who steal from you, strangers you can’t depend on, strangers who will badmouth you behind your back. And they insist they’re your “friend”. It’s insulting, really. It would not suffice to even call them “Sir” or “Madam” because they do not behave like gentlemen or ladies. If they do behave like proper, civilized individuals, then I insist on calling them “Sir” or “Madam” because I respect them for their courtesy and consideration for others.
It’s as if people think to be a “gentleman” is to own horses and
That is why to me, I address strangers, teachers and elders as “Mr./Mrs./Ms.” or “Sir/Ma’am” and the deacon as “Deacon” or “Mister”, priest as “Father” the bishop as “Your Excellency” the cardinal as “Your Eminence” and the Pope as “Your Holiness.”
Wonderful. Please pass on my congratulations to Fr Deacon Carl, and assure him of my prayers (Ex Cuthbert OSA)
Fr Ken Clark
Axios axios axios! Sto lat (“may he live 100 years!”).
+ pax et bonum
Congratulations to the Reverend Mr Deacon Carl Reid!
P.K.T.P., tace vel abi, amabo te. Nos humiliemus.
Hidden One:
All these forms are recent and vain inventions for deacons:
The Rev. Mr. Smith, Rev. Mr. Smith, Rev. Deacon Smith, Fr. Deacon Smith, and any title using the forename without the surname.
It is simple: Mr. Carl Reid or Mr. Reid or Deacon Carl Reid or Deacon Reid. There is nothing wrong with the title of Mr.! It is an honourable title for gentlemen. We do not need fancy artificial substitutes. The forename is used with the title as the affective form in liturgical prayer, whether in the Mass or the Office. But except in that specialised sense, the proper forms of respect use the surname. This Deacon Carl nonsense is more first-naming, a practice emanating from the worst quarters and now infecting the others. First names are for family and close personal friends. Can there no longer be any respect? Can there no longer be any distinction between what you call your cat and how you address your bishop?
There is an established exception to the foregoing rules. Religious clerics take a name of profession (in most orders) or a Baptismal forename (in just a rare few), so that the wonderful hermit-priest from Oregon, Fr. Arsenius Anachoreta, becomes Fr. Arsenius and not Fr. Anachoreta. I cannot stand this nonsense of referring to ‘Bishop Peter’ and ‘Archbishop John’. The former TAC bishop in Pakistan is the only Bishop Peter I know, and that’s because ‘Peter’ is his surname.
Once, God willing, Mr. Reid be ordained priest, his title in ordinary use (outside of reference in liturgical prayer) will be Fr. Carl Reid or Fr. Reid (not ‘Fr. Carl’) or, more formally, The Reverend Carl Reid, where the definite article absolutely must be included and absolutely must begin with a capital letter, just as it is correct to write The Prince Henry of Wales and completely wrong to call him ‘Prince Henry of Wales’.
When I was in school, one of the boys referred to Fr. Murphy by his first name, with the title of Fr. A certain Brother slapped that boy across the face for insolence and told him that you never address our priest that way. He was right to do so.
P.K.T.P.
Peter,
The forename is used with the title as the affective form in liturgical prayer, whether in the Mass or the Office. But except in that specialised sense, the proper forms of respect use the surname. This Deacon Carl nonsense is more first-naming, a practice emanating from the worst quarters and now infecting the others. First names are for family and close personal friends. Can there no longer be any respect? Can there no longer be any distinction between what you call your cat and how you address your bishop?
Since you are on the warpath over this, I’m going to let you take it up with my archbishop. Cardinal Sean O’Malley, O. F. M. (Cap.), insists that he be called and introduced as “Cardinal Sean” rather than “Cardinal O’Malley.” He also seems also not to like “Your Emminence” as a form of address.
But historically, reference to the bishop by given name in the anaphora of the mass, and in other liturgical prayers, came about because the bishop was familiar to the clergy and the laity of his diocese (church). It is a pity that our leaders are now so distant that such a form of address seems inappropriate outside of liturgical use.
You wrote: There is an established exception to the foregoing rules. Religious clerics take a name of profession (in most orders) or a Baptismal forename (in just a rare few), so that the wonderful hermit-priest from Oregon, Fr. Arsenius Anachoreta, becomes Fr. Arsenius and not Fr. Anachoreta.
Many diocesan clergy also prefer to be addressed by their first names rather than their surnames. If in doubt, I always ask each cleric’s preference and then follow it.
Norm.
Axios!
MANY YEARS Father Deacon Karl! BYZANTINES RULE!
Congratulations Father Deacon Karl. So glad you shared your pictures. I miss you all.
Jolan Horvath