www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Should priests vest as deacons and serve as such?

One should also point out, for clarity: the 62 GIRM is used with the OF, and down-vesting is accepted practice for the 62 missal, which predates Sacrosanctum Concilium; the OF may only use the 62 rubrics and missal; not the changes brought by Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1963.

The Dominican Rite also down-vests priests serving in the roles of deacon and subdeacon; if a deacon is available, however, they serve as deacon; if two deacons, deacon and subdeacon. Additional priests in choir. For they are affected by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is VERY relevant to the pauline mass, however, and the source of the prohibitions in the current GIRM.

Thank you, Fr. Protodeacon!

My sentiments exactly, except that I could not have expressed them as well.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of clerics in the RCC, the TLM represents a rejection of SC--lock, stock and barrel. Some hate the TLM for that reason, while others hate SC for it. Either way, they are in error.

The real problem, I think, is that they didn't understand SC at the time it was promulgated, and they still don't--which means they certainly have no appreciation for the issues you raised here. Thanks again for sharing them.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It's funny - I understand the arguments against clerics serving as clerics of lower-ranked orders to which they've already been ordained, but I personally just don't see it as a big deal.

I guess because the message it sends to me is not that "these lower orders are just a step on the way to priesthood" - but just simply that becoming a priest doesn't strip one of his diaconal ordination, and so therefore I don't really see the big deal in a priest acting as a deacon or a deacon acting as a subdeacon in situations that call for it.

From my POV, I can more easily agree with the sentiment that, if a cleric of a lower order is present and able to do so, he should fill that role instead of the cleric of a higher order.

Alexis

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with the 1962 Missale Romanum in mind not the "Pauline Mass" as there was no "Pauline Mass" at the time.
2. The liturgical norms of Sacrosanctum Concilium have a greater canonical weight than rubrics. Rubrics need to be based on and interpretered in light of these norms, not the other way around.
3. There are no rubrics in the Missale Romanum of 1962 that refer to priests serving either as deacons or subdeacons. Neither the text nor the rubrics make any mention of this practice.
4. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum (1752) in Book I,Chapters VIII, IX, and X give instructions for the assistant deacons, the deacon and subdeacon at the Solemn Pontifical Mass who are to be chosen from the cathedral canons. Originally, these canons were in the order of the diaconate and subdiaconate. Eventually, all of the canons were in the order of the presbyterate, although they retained the original "titles". This is an example of a liturgical and theological anomoly. The anomoly then becomes the norm due to a faulty theology of orders. Please note that these are not rubrics that endorse this practice. There are no rubrics that do such only dubious customs.
5. Fr. Serge has clearly pointed out the essential theological flaw to this practice: "It is an article of Faith that the Church's threefold hierarchy (bishops, priests, and deacons) is of divine institution. That being the case, whatever has a destructive effect on the three-fold hierarchy is assuredly theologically objectionable.

This includes priests dressing up (or down?) to look like deacons, and priests dressing up to look like bishops."

But dressing up and dressing down are just clearly not the same thing.

A priest has been ordained a deacon. He has received diaconal orders. I don't know the theology behind it for sure - but I'm pretty positive that being ordained a priest doesn't "strip" one of his diaconal orders.

A priest dressing up to look like a bishop would be totally different, as he hasn't been ordained in the episcopal order.

Now, I guess my question would be: what is the Byzantine theology behind holy orders? Does "moving up the ranks" strip one of his past orders? Does the order of priest actually replace the order of deacon, and bishop replace that of priest, or is it rather the addition of something new without expense to the old?

Alexis

One need only consult Orthodox best practice: priests simply never fulfill the roles of deacon or subdeacon!

The following from Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be read with great care:

§ 26. Liturgical services are not private functions but are celebrations of the Church which is “the sacrament of unity,” namely, “the holy people united and arranged under their bishop.” [St. Cyprian, “On the Unity of the Catholic Church,” 7; cf. Letter 66, n.8,3.]
Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They manifest it, and have effects upon it. But they also touch individual members of the Church in different ways, depending on their orders, their role in the liturgical services, and their actual participation in them.

§ 28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister, or layman who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy.

1. The Church has within it a variety of orders and offices.
2. The Church is hierarchically structured.
3. A person belongs to only one order in the Church at any one time.
4. The liturgical services manifest the Church and have effects upon it.
5. Once one has entered from one order in the Church into another, a substantial change takes place.
6. Some of the Mysteries convey “character”: they cannot be repeated, e.g. baptism, chrismation, holy orders.
7. In Latin theology orders convey a “sacred power”. This is not lost when one moves from the diaconate to the presbyterate to the episcopate. A priest can do all that a deacon can do and more from this perspective, so a bishop can do all that a deacon can do and that a priest can do and more.
8. A baptized man once ordained does not forfeit his baptism; however, he is no longer in the order of the baptized but in that of the order to which he has been ordained.
9. A deacon once ordained a priest is no longer in the order of the diaconate but in the order of the presbyterate. If this is not true, then sections 26 and 28 from Sacrosanctum Concilium are not true. The priest does not forfeit the “character” of the diaconate nor does he forfeit the “sacred power” of the diaconate, yet he is not a deacon in the order of the diaconate but a presbyter in the order of the presbyterate.
10. All of the divinely instituted orders are necessary for the fullness of the Church.
11. The different orders are related to Christ and to one another in various ways.
12. The orders do not exist as absolutes unto themselves. A deacon must be a deacon because he is deacon to a bishop. A bishop is a bishop to a local Church.
13. Once a man is ordained a presbyter, he no longer is a deacon to his bishop but is a co-operator with his bishop in the priesthood. He is that all the time, regards of liturgical functions or other ministries assigned to him.
14. The orders in the Church need to be seen to be real and coherent.
15. The order of the diaconate does not exist to be a stepping stone to the order of the presbyterate any more than the presbyterate is a stepping stone to the episcopate.
16. When a priest vests as a deacon and serves as one, the question is obvious: Why is he not serving as a priest if he is a priest? A certainly doesn’t stop being a priest because he has put on diaconal vesture. This practice is neither real nor does it cohere. This priest stopped being a deacon to his bishop when he was ordained a priest. He no longer relates to his bishop as a deacon or to the other orders in the Church as such. He relates to them as a priest. When a bishop serves but in a non-pontifical manner, he still serves as a bishop. He doesn’t revert to serving as a priest and this is because he is a bishop and in the order of the episcopate. He relates to the other members of the episcopate in a way that no priest does and he relates to presbyters always as a bishop.
17. Liturgy should never be in the realm of the unreal. There should be nothing false about it, nothing that actually damages the very Body of Christ. The Paschal Mystery of Christ manifests itself in the Church in various orders in diverse ways. This is all done by the power of the Holy Spirit and each of these gifts is given for the building up of the Body of Christ. How can the hand say to the foot, I do not need you? Cf. 1 Cor. 12.

In the Church of Christ there is no place for falsehood, because Christ founded His Church on the Rock of Truth.

Fr. Serge

Alexis,

Protodeacon David has already answered your question, quoting Fr. Serge:

In other words, the question is not whether or not the character of the diaconate is lost when one is ordained to the presbyterate. Rather, the question is whether or not a blatant disregard for the integrity of the roles proper to each of the hierarchical orders is a good thing for the Church.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

See what the Prefect of the CDW is doing these days. It appears he does not believe that Sacrocanctum Concilium sections 26 and 28 apply.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/01/clergy-conference-in-rome-solemn_07.html

Maybe he should also be sent a copy of the Liturgical Instruction for the Application of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches so he can read section 75?

And this is a celebration for the Year of the Priest with a priest as a deacon and another priest as a subdeacon - a wonderful example of the "unreal and incoherent practice of orders".

This Mass is evidently an "Extraordinary Form" celebration, meaning the Missal in use immediately prior to Vatican II. I've noticed before that the people who do this are under the impression that the prohibition of priests playing deacon and subdeacon does not apply to them. So far as I know, there is no such exemption.

However, when Pope Benedict broadened the use of the old Missal EWTN had a couple of discussions of the matter, and one of the "issues" involved was the question (this is a question?) of whether one of the current crop of "permanent deacons" could serve at the Extraordinary Form of Mass. Reluctantly, the priests agreed that such a deacon theoretically could so serve.

Isn't that consoling and comforting?

Fr Serge

Alexis,

For comprehension purposes, allow me to take the liberty to compare this to a non-church situation:

Say there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court, or Secretary of State or some other prestigious office, a former Supreme Court, Secretary of State, etc could not properly step into the vacancy even though they were previously approved.

It's not that the person is not qualified, but because of respect for the office and proper rules, there is no retroactive qualification.

I hope this example may help.

1) There are actually very few celebrations of High Mass in the traditional form of the Roman Rite at the moment. Sadly.

2) When and where it is celebrated, usually the three sacred ministers would be three priests. On occasions, you will get two priests and a deacon. In which case, one of the priests acts as deacon and the deacon as subdeacon. Usually.

3) Outside of the very few traditional seminaries, you won't find a subdeacon, since we seem to have accidentally abolished the subdiaconate. Well, not technically, but they just stopped ordaining people to the subdiaconate and minor orders and skip straight to the diaconate. So you aren't going to find a subdeacon if you try, even if you try really hard. This has led to an awful lot of debate about instituted lectors and (other) laymen (insituted lectors aren't actually ordained lectors, at least as far as I can work it out) acting as subdeacons and none of that debate has been at all useful because noone has actually bothered to look at the origin of the role.

4) Even in the Pauline liturgy, it is not unusual at all to see a priest acting as deacon and, consequently, vested as such, unless there is actually a deacon there in which case the deacon will, obviously, fulfil that role. That said, since the reinstitution of a permanent diaconate in the West, noone quite knows what a deacon is actually for. Seriously.

5) Surely, however, it is obvious that a permanent deacon is, umm... permanently a deacon. And, therefore, is a deacon. And could serve as a deacon or, presumably, subdeacon, for High Mass.

6) Most of the legislation about the liturgy that comes out of Rome, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, is patently about the 'New Rite', the Pauline liturgy. As such, we tend to ignore it.

Basically, I think we would use deacons and subdeacons if we had them, but usually we don't. I mean, if we did, it would free up those two priests to hear confessions during Mass, right? ;-)

So, a quick question...

Given that we don't, usually, actually have deacons and those in lower orders in the West...

What should we do?

I mean, the choice is between 'acting down', which would break the symbolism if we still had it but we don't anyway, or should we use the simplified form of the Liturgy with only the priest-celebrant?