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

TERRY:

What you seem to be looking at is a Mass in the Extraordinary form. That's a whole different ball game. Prior to the liturgical reform, our assistant pastor once served the second Mass of Christmas for our pastor immediately after Midnight Mass--everyone else went home and the regular servers were beat.

BOB

It's a chicken and Egg situation, Fr. Deacon.

The mandate for saying mass resulted in three responses:
more masses scheduled, more altars in use (side altars, even simultaneously), and "hidden concelebration" by down-vesting.

That the instructions of the missals made deacons who were not priests lower priority to serve in the role to which they were ordained further contributes to the decline, which reinforces the down-vesting trend, and further, to the near abolition of the permanent deaconate and permanent subdeaconate within the Roman Church. Really, the change begins in the 1200's... by Trent it was institutionalized.

It's well documented. ISTR it's even mentioned in the Deacon Directory....

aramis:
Can you provide exact sources for your comments about instructins of the missals. It would be appreciated very much.
"That the instructions of the missals made deacons who were not priests lower priority to serve in the role to which they were ordained further contributes to the decline, which reinforces the down-vesting trend, and further, to the near abolition of the permanent deaconate and permanent subdeaconate within the Roman Church. Really, the change begins in the 1200's... by Trent it was institutionalized.

It's well documented. ISTR it's even mentioned in the Deacon Directory...."

The rubrics of the 1962 Missale Romanum does not mention priests serving as deacons. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum [not the current one] mentions "canon deacons" and "canon subdeacons" who fuctions with the bishop. Originally they were in the orders of deacon and subdeacon but later these canons were all priests although the titles remainded as an anachorism.

Your help would be appreciated.

Fr Protodeacon David:
You'll be needing the instructions from the 1200's to 1400's; they are referenced in several secondary and tertiary sources I've read, but do not have. (Borrowed a book at a time from various theologians I have known....) The 1962 missal's GIRM is notably lacking instructions that had become customary. (My dad, a roman permanent Deacon, is glad that the pauline missal is so explicit in its GIRM.)

The current roman pontifical makes reference to vesting of cardinal deacons as deacons when attending upon the pope; the current GIRM explicitly requires priest vests as priests. (current GIRM c 114) Likewise the deacon if present excercises his own ministry (c 171); canon 208 enables the concelebrants to perform the deacon's duties if the deacon is not present. C 209 requires concelebrants vest as if primary celebrants, unless there is a sufficiently good reason, giving example of large numbers of concelebrants.

The Vatican II post-conciliar documents also speak to the issue obliquely.

Thanks aramis,

If you could be more specific about the instructions from 1200's to 1400's i.e. the actual texts, this would be of great help.

The only liturgical-canonical reference that I have been able to find is in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, The first book, Chapters VIII, IX, and X which make reference to the assistant deacons, and the deacon and subdeacon of the Mass. They are all drawn upon from the canons of the cathedral church. Originally, the canons were in the orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest but the titles atrophied and eventually all the canons were in the order of the presbyterate, however, the various titles remained.

Also, what is the reference in the current Roman Pontifical to cardinal deacons vesting in the dalmatic when attending upon the pope [here, they function liturgically somewhat like assistant deacons]? I know it is done in practice but where is the rubrical reference?

With thanks for your help.

The following are the only current texts I know of on this topic. If anyone could assist with more both from the past and those that are current, I would greatly appreciate the time and effort.

“… A reader or acolyte, even one not formally instituted, will perform the subdeacon’s functions. In the celebration of Mass all ministers should do all and only those parts that belong to them on the basis of the order they have received. The ordained ministers at mass are therefore to take part either by concelebrating if they are priests or by exercising their proper ministries if they are deacons…It is altogether out of place for a priest vested as a deacon to exercise the deacon’s function…”
SC Divine Worship, Presentation Cum, die 1 Ianuarii of the changes introduced into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 23 Dec. 1972; Notitiae 9 (1973) 34-38
[Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, 206]

“Therefore liturgical services involve the whole Body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they also concern the individual members of the Church in different ways according to their different orders, offices, and actual participation.” Sacrosanctum Concilium 26.

“In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.” SC 28

“The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred orders…” SC 32

“All in the assembly gathered for Mass have an individual right and duty to contribute their participation in ways differing according to the diversity of their order and liturgical function. Thus in carrying out this function, all, whether ministers or lay persons, should do all and only those parts that belong to them, so that the very arrangement of the celebration itself makes the Church stand out as being formed in a structure of different orders and ministries.” GIRM 58 (1975)

“The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, which is the “Sacrament of unity,” that is, a holy people gathered together and ordered under the Bishop. For this reason, the Eucharistic celebration belongs to the whole Body of the Church. Such a celebration manifests this same Body and affects it. As to the individual members of the Body, the Eucharistic celebration touches them in different ways, according to the rank, office, and degree of participation in the Eucharist. (SC 26) In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own,” demonstrates its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering. (SC 14) Therefore, all, whether ordained ministers or Christian faithful, by virtue of their function or their office, should do all and only those parts that belong to them. (SC 28) GIRM 91 (2000)

“Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; (SC 28) in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.” Caeremoniale Episcoporum 22

“A real and coherent practice of the Orders is sought

…Thus, the ministers necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy are obtained, avoiding the practice, different also in this case from the Latin Church in which it is no longer in use, of having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical functions that should be reserved to those of lower range (the most frequent case is that of presbyters functioning as deacons), or of permanently appointing to the laity liturgical tasks expected of a minister: practices to be eliminated.” Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 75

Father David Straut asks whether my criticism of clergy vesting and so on as including "the Award system of some of the Eastern Churches where priests are awarded vestments and privileges of the Episcopate: the epignation, the miter, serving with open Royal Doors, etc.?"

I did not have that phenomenon in mind, however I can offer a few comments:

the epigonation - this vestment which is now used as a mark of special dignity in some Churches is not particularly episcopal - it is associated with the authority to hear Confessions and grant absolution (it is true, I must admit, that this authority was itself reserved to the bishop in the early Church - but then, every authority was reserved to the bishop in the early Church).

serving with open Royal Doors this practice has been spreading like wildfire in America. But the authentic tradition is to serve with open Royal Doors until just after the Great Entrance - one may observe this by attending an Old-Rite celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Nikon complained about this, and insisted that the Royal Doors should be closed until the Little Entrance, then closed again after the Gospel. The older practice has survived as an award.

As to the Mitre and so forth - this is a case of some episcopal insignia being used for awards. This practice almost certainly came into Orthodox use by osmosis from the Latins in Eastern Europe. The point was to have minor prelates for celebrations of special solemnity without increasing the number of actual bishops (because such worthies as the Tsar of Russia and the Emperor of Austria paid the salaries of the hierarchy, meaning that real bishops were expensive!). With these minor prelates to adorn patronal feasts and the like, it was possible to have - as they did - huge dioceses, where the bishop could not and did not visit all the parishes regularly. Metropolitan Andrew is praised for having visited at least once every parish in the Archdiocese of L'viv - meaning about 1,200 parishes with poor transportation, difficult access, and interruptions by such distractions as World War I and the revolutions which followed. As he got older, he was increasingly paralyzed.

Any number of other dioceses had similar situations. But creating ersatz "bishops" is not a serious solution, nor is the creation of auxiliary bishops who may look impressive but do not have the authority whose symbols they are wearing.

When I was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite, the bishop presented me with a pair of dikerotrikera. I've never had the nerve to use them (I keep them in the house so that the bishop, when he comes to us, does not have to bring his own).

Hope that clarifies my view of the matter to some extent.

Fr Serge

Interesting information!

http://www.salvemaliturgia.com/2009/12/ordenacao-sacerdotal-do-pe-adriano-na.html

The link above will show photos of priests serving as deacons. Note that in one of the photos the priests are also wearing the priestly stole over the dalmatic while they lay hands on candidates at an ordination to the presbyterate. Very interesting?

Looks both confused and confusing!

Fr. Serge

Fr. Protodeacon,

I don't find it to be interesting, so much as distressing. What it says to me is that in embracing the TLM, certain groups within the RCC are also embracing some of the abuses that had been abolished with Vat. II.

I wasn't able to see the pictures, but what you describe is clearly a case of the disregard for the integrity of the deacon's role that is so easy to fall into when a priest functioning as a deacon has become the norm rather than the exception. When it's time for all priests present to lay hands on the candidate, just throw a stole over his dalmatic to show that he really is a priest, then afterwards he can take it off and go back to functioning as a deacon.

(My take on Pope Benedict's call for a "reform of the reform" was that the RCC needed to lose the idea that the "new" concept of the Mass was completely irreconcilable with the old. This would involve priests and people being familiar with both forms of the Mass, seeing where they are similar and developing an abhorrence for extreme divergences in either direction.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Hmmm. Saw the televised Mass for Archbishop Sheen (from Saint Patrick's Cathedral, New York) yesterday. The Cathedral was well filled, with oodles of clergy. The Gospel was read by a presbyter, vested as such, but at the end, when the Archbishop of New York was thanking all and sundry, he thanked the deacons who were present! So how come no deacon was invited to serve?

Fr. Serge

No clue as to why, since the GIRM is explicit that the ONLY time a presbyter is to read the Gospel is when no deacon is present.

Further thoughts on this matter:

Do not the liturgical norms which are drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the liturgy apply to all the rites of the Catholic Church? Given that Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dec. 4, 1963 was written in the context of the Missale Romanum of 1962 do not these norms apply to what is now termed the extra ordinary form of the Roman Rite? They read as follows:

§ 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.

These norms are abundantly clear and to the point: one functions in the order to which one currently belongs. While a presbyter can do what a deacon does in regards to the liturgical functions, a man once ordained to the presbyterate ceases to be in the order of the diaconate. Once a layman is ordained to the diaconate [as is the present case of entry in the Latin Church into the clerical state] he is no longer in the order of the laity [the baptized and chrismated] but is now in the order of the diaconate. The character received in baptism and chrismation remains which essentially means he is not to be baptized or chrismated again. So for the presbyter; the character of the diaconate remains, meaning he is not to be ordained a deacon again. One cannot forfeit these mysteries once they have been received. But certainly, one would not argue that the clergy are in the order of the laity, so one should not argue that presbyters or bishops are in the order of the diaconate. Ministerial orders are not simply about functions. They are also about ecclesial relationships. Quite plainly, the deacon’s relationship with the bishop is not the same as the presbyter’s relationship with the bishop. The Church is a corporate body hierarchically structured. When priests act in an omnivorous manner vested as deacons [and as subdeacons] assuming the liturgical functions of other orders, there is an implicit message that these other orders serve no purpose in the Church except as a grade to the presbyterate. This practice is not only a flagrant liturgical abuse; no matter how “traditional” is might seem but also erodes the hierarchical and corporate nature of the Church. This is simply a deformation of what the Church really is. It is to present the Body of Christ in a false manner. One cannot put on and off an order by putting on and off vestments. A priest is quite clearly a priest all of the time. His relationship to his bishop, to his fellow presbyters, to the deacons and the laity is always as priest: it is never as deacon regardless of what he is wearing or what he is doing. A real and coherent practice of orders is not an option!

Father Protodeacon,

Yes, they apply to the Traditional Sacraments of the Latin Rite as well.

But, as Stuart is so apt to point out, often directives do not translate into reality.

Alexis