www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Bi-Ritual Deacons?

Gordo,


I think you would have a hard time arguing that point as the mission territories have the least amount of deacons, in many cases the bishops don't want them, and plenty of vocations to the celibate priesthood. On the otherhand the diaconate has flourised in North America and Western Europe. I always found it ironic that the Eastern Churches get credit for the restoration fo the diaconate in the Latin Church, they did promote it at Vatican II, but themselves had and continue to have very few deacons.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

What I was addressing was the intent of the Council Fathers as reflected in the relevant texts of the Council as well as the speeches, not so much what followed after the restoration by Pope Paul VI. As I said above, whatever the intent, the reality is that there are far more deacons in well established first world dioceses than in mission territories.

As to the irony regarding the Eastern Churches, I agree. Each parish should have at least two or three deacons. Part of the issue is the restrictive way certain jurisdictions form deacons. The notion of a four year program is just absurd, especially with a single intake every four years. IMHO, it should be two years at most with two additional years if they desire preaching faculties, which not all do (nor should all receive). Such an approach assumes, of course, that there is a pipeline of men in minor orders. Restore minor orders and make them flourish and diaconal vocations will follow, IMHO.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Canon Law requires three and the Metropolia requires four because they do want all their deacons to preach at least once a month.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

One presumes that the minor orders preparation and service would account for at least one of those years.

What is the rationale for requiring the deacons to preach at least once a month? Not that I oppose diaconal preaching, but it certainly need not be a requirement for serving as a deacon.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Unfortunately minor orders, especially the subdiaconate, are seen as a ritual requirements and not much more. Some get subdiaconate at the same Liturgy they are ordained deacon.

The rationale? If you never do it you will never get good at it. I preach every other week and consider myself fortunate for having to do so. It has made me a much better homilist and improved my delivery.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

And yet it would seem that the men who do not serve as subdeacons may be missing out on an opportunity to explore and exercise this minor order more fully. It would also seem to be something of a testing ground for major orders, if it is guided properly and permitted to develop.

As to the preaching, as I said I think it is great that deacons can preach. And practice does bring one closer to perfection! At the same time, in thinking about the needs of parishes via-a-vis the Divine Liturgy and the common life, it would seem to me that the pressing need is for deacons to fulfill their ministry within and outside the assembly. The preaching deacon is more of a "nice to have" for many parishes, but it is not essential. Certain deacons should receive those faculties, but not necessarily all, IMHO.

That said, I do think it is something that should definitely be encouraged after ordination for most deacons, perhaps after further training in homiletics.

But meanwhile, to your point, our Churches have very few deacons. What I would propose would be a way to help ensure many more deacons serve in our parishes in a shorter period of time.

God bless,

Gordo

Good subdeacons who know what they are doing and do it well are a great blessing - we need more of them.

Fr. Serge

Amen!

Do subdeacons, in the absence of a deacon, offer the litanies in any of the Slavic Churches as they do in the Antiochian? (at least Antiochian Orthodox)

Back to the question of homilies and presidential responsibilities, I believe that the deacon is like the Word of God sent forth from the Father/Bishop to guide, inspire, animate, model, cultivate and develop the cosmos/assembly. He is in essence the Bishop's living homily in the community and the icon of the bishops diakonia to all his spiritual children, which is one of the reasons why we address deacons as "Father", since they sacramentally image a vital dimension of the Bishop's fatherhood: kenosis. As the Word of the Bishop, the deacon goes forth into the community as his "eyes, ears and hands" and returns with the needs/petitions/thanksgiving of the faithful to be presented to the Bishop in the Divine Liturgy. He is also like the angels who exercise a certain governance over the Cosmos and are often sent forth as messengers of the Most High. This is conveyed iconographically from time to time by angels in diaconal vestments, historically by the fact that deacons were often chosen to be messengers and bearers of charitable giving between the churches, and liturgically through the various prayers and actions of the deacons in the assembly.

But what happens to the exercise of this vital ministry when deacons are consumed with what are essentially sacerdotal, presidential responsibilities, such as baptizing and blessing marriages? (I have read in various publications that some Latin deacons feel this this from time to time.) The end result is that some feel that they are never able to exercise the ministry that is actually entrusted to them.

So I am grateful that we Easterns (at least traditionally!) know better how to properly use our deacons. (Now let's ordain more of them!) The Latin West is still trying to figure that one out, and I am afraid that, while Vatican II brought about a welcome "restoration", it also sowed some seeds of confusion vis-a-vis the proper exercise of this ministry through the addition of sacerdotal responsibilities.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I have, rarely, seen subdeacons chanting synaptes and ektenes. My own view is that if a subdeacon wishes to serve as a deacon, he should simply become a deacon.

Fr. Serge

What I've always felt my role was was as a priest in the classroom, college or possibly high school. The opportunity to impact lives is so great . . . and I do see that in a church where the deaconite is universally accepted by the laity as clergy,this is might be more properly a deaconal ministry. Today, however, to be effective, it would need to be presbyteral, not deaconal.

Hey, today's epistle

Edited: Hmm, I lost the original. Anyway, as to preaching: most deacons that I have encountered, eastern and western, have preached spectacularly[1]. Some likely comes from preaching less often, but also, deacons tend to be disproportionately college professors, lawyers, and others that communicate for a living.

hawk

While that would be nice, we have sixty-some-odd families in our parish. To get multiple deacons . . .

OTOH,west-central Pennsylvania is up to its ankles in deacons. In five years, I think I only saw a couple of masses/liturgies without a deacon.


In the Pittsburgh Metropolia (is that correct? I don't know enough greek to know all my singular's from plurals, and distinctly remember a Jebbie catching me on "criterium), it requires a two week stay at the seminary each summer during formation. Taking a specific two weeks each summer is an employment problem for most people in the U.S.
[/quote]

Yes, I believe that is correct. Plus additional coursework throughout the year.

Personally, I think a program like this one for doctrinal formation coupled with rubric training by your local priest and perhaps an annual retreat weekend would be sufficient. (Cantor training may also be a plus...)

http://www.manor.edu/coned/eastern.htm

Ideally, the more deacons a parish has (plus the more men in minor orders) the less burden on the priest. Plus, some of those deacons after a period of pastoral service may want to continue on for graduate work and may make excellent candidates for the presbyterate. Given the current trajectory of existing Eastern Churches, practically every church outside of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey should be seen as within mission territory and should be shepherded accordingly.

That means the organic growth and development of local clergy.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Anyone have an opinion on the manor college program? The eparchial people I have spoken with of late have had less than glowing comments about it.

Also heard that now that the archeparchy has gotten its accreditation the next task is to get distance education going. Regardless, I plan to start the Ukrainian Catholic program when it begins this year.

Out of curiosity, what has been shared?

Gordo

I feel compelled to respond (in a respectful manner) to Serge Keheler�s remarks from the perspective of a Latin Rite Catholic because his entry appears to include some inaccuracies and unsupported opinions rather than documented facts. My response is supported by the contents of the following documents, of which all are obtainable through the internet: Vatican II document, �Lumen Gentium�; Pope Paul�s VI�s Apostolic Letter �Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem� (general norms for restoring the permanent diaconate in the Latin Church), June 18, 1967; �Deacons Serve the Kingdom of God� and �The Deacon has Many Pastoral Functions� from the General Audiences of Pope John Paul II of October 5, 1993 and October 13, 1993, respectively; the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the Instruction �Redemptionis Sacramentum�; the Ceremonial of Bishops.

First of all, Keheler says that, �Rome had lost the diaconate completely.� This statement is simply untrue. In the early Church, where Christian communities were small and confined mostly to cities, the bishops functioned both as the pastors, assisted by deacons. Priests functioned as a council of advisors to the bishop, and when Christian communities expanded to the rural areas, the priests were sent by the bishops to preside over them for day to day pastoral needs, with the help of deacons where possible. With the passage of time, especially after the Council of Nicaea in 325 further defined and expanded the role of priests, priests began to assume most if not all service functions of the deacons, making the need for them less necessary (at least in the West). As a result, ordination to the diaconate became only a brief, (usually six months) final step in preparation for the priesthood. The status of the diaconate in the Latin Church remained that way until Vatican II (even though restoration of the diaconate as a permanent rank of clergy was discussed at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century). Thus, the diaconate has always existed in the Latin Church.

Keheler goes on to say that �In almost every instance the "Deacon" at a Solemn Mass was in fact a Priest gussied up like a Deacon.� The fact was that the liturgy had pretty much been static through the centuries and �solemn high� masses, did in fact call for the functions of both a deacon and a subdeacon. From a practical standpoint, since the only ordained deacons (and subdeacons for that matter) available in a typical diocese for many centuries, until after Vatican II, were only a handful of seminarians, it would be impossible to have them serve in their actual roles in each and every parish. Following the tenet that one of a higher rank can perform the duties of those at a lesser rank, and since there were a sufficient number of available priests, priests were in fact �vested� as deacons and subdeacons and performed their necessary functions at solemn high masses.

Next, Serge says, �The expression "permanent Deacon" is absurd,� etc. As I mentioned above, seminarians are ordained deacons intended to serve as such for a brief period on their way to ordination as priests. The Latin Church refers to these �temporary� deacons as �transitional deacons� as opposed to �permanent deacons� as a way of differentiating between the two in regard to assignments for pastoral service; the former with the understanding that diaconal service is temporary, and the latter ongoing. Although Serge is correct in stating that �one Deacon is the same as another Deacon� and the Church treats them so, he is inaccurate in saying �so far as his future potential is concerned� as I�ve just explained.

Keheler goes on to say that Vatican II had some �bizarre results� and included three statements which I find are either inaccurate or simply not believable. Under a) he implies that the restoration of the diaconate was the solution to the shortage of priests. I cannot respond to what the bishops and priests �took into their heads.� Nevertheless, this is inaccurate because the shortage of priests actually didn�t start until some five years AFTER Vatican II (calling for the restoration of the permanent diaconate) ended. As far as functioning liturgically, deacons are simply allowed to perform any and all liturgical services they are allowed to in virtue of their non-priestly powers received through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Powers they always had. Although confecting the Eucharist is a priestly power, distributing it can be done by non-priests. For example, even in the early Church, members brought the Eucharist home to give to the bedridden who couldn�t attend Mass. Since in danger of death, anyone � even a lay person � can (and should) baptize, it made sense to allow this function to deacons. In the Western understanding of marriage, the couple is the joint celebrant of the sacrament, the clergy presiding only as the official witness of the Church. Thus, it made sense to allow this function to deacons. Since funeral services other than Mass are not sacraments, it makes sense to allow this function to deacons. The same applies to other liturgical services where sacraments required to be administered by a bishop or priest are not served. Thus, deacons may preside only over the Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage; priests may preside over, in addition to these two, the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, and under certain circumstances, Confirmation; bishops may of course preside over all the Sacraments, including Holy Orders. Under Keheler�s b) I also cannot speak to his statement that �some Bishops went wild trying to insist that the Deacon is not a cleric� and I cannot believe his statements about deacon�s albs and stoles for the following reasons. As to the alb, this is what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, number 336 says, �� Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on.� This exact wording is included in number 122 of the authoritative Instruction, �Redemptionis Sacramentum � On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist� issued by Francis Cardinal Arinze on April 23, 2004 when he was then the head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Neither of these documents speak of any different kinds of stoles for transitional and permanent deacons. Actually, neither document differentiates between the two. I accessed at least two dozen companies that supply liturgical vestments and not a single one was selling either the kind of alb or stole Keheler refers to. So, I�m sorry to say, I simply can�t believe his statements without a reference to particular companies that sell these, if any. As to Keheler�s c), I also cannot believe his story about the deacon not being able to attend Mass in over a year because he was running around serving 14 parishes. One of the commandments of the Church is to attend Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Not to do so is a serious sin. Therefore, I cannot believe that a bishop would intentionally be the cause of one�s serious sin. That�s just too unbelievable. As to the second part, there hasn�t been a such thing as a �Pontifical Mass� since the liturgy was revised 34 years ago. Although the Ceremonial of Bishops requires the assistance of deacons, it plainly states that where none are available, priests � vested as priests � should perform the functions.