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

Please quote in context.
Liturgical services ought to be real, there should be nothing in them that would lead one to think that you could do something within the liurgy that you are not doing outside of the liturgy.

The Council of Trent answers the question about the laity assuming liturgical roles that are for a particular clerical order. The lay server is not an acolyte but is permitted when no acolyte is present. Generally, since the vast majority are usually children or adolescents, they are not mistaken for clerics. It should also be noted that generally the baptized can do what the acolyte does in serving Mass.

From the 23rd Session of the Council of Trent:
"CHAPTER XVII.
In what manner the exercise of the minor orders is to be restored.
That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the janitor,-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles, and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places,-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders; and It exhorts in the Lord all and each of the prelates of the churches, and commands them, that it be their care to restore the said functions, as far as it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches of their dioceses, where the number of the people and the revenues of the church can support it; and, to those who exercise those functions, they shall assign salaries out of some part of the revenues of any simple benefices, or those of the fabric of the church,-if the funds allow of it,-or out of the revenues of both together, of which stipends they may, if negligent, be mulcted in a part, or be wholly deprived thereof, according to the judgment of the Ordinary. And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church."


While specfic rubrics of the Ordinary Form do not apply to the Extra Ordinary Form, please note that Sacrosanctum Concilium provides not rubrics but what it titles as norms and principles, that even in some cases are applicable to all of the liturgical rites of the Catholic Church both West and East.

The general principles and norms of Sacrosanctum Concilium are directed to the Extra Ordinary Form for Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with it in mind, it being the Latin Mass of the day. This should be clear to all who can read with care.

"As I understand the western theology of orders, one does not cease to be the lower order when one is promoted to the higher." Where does the Catholic Church teach this in any of its official teachings? Please provide the sources. This practice also does not cohere with the practice both in East and West of the first thousand years and a practice that still continues in the East today; a practice that is some 2,000 years old. How does this fit in with the hermeneutic of continuity? The practice does not cohere and thus the theoligical explanations will not cohere. At best this is a Western theologoumena: that the greater can do what the lesser can do.

Please read previous posts under this topic and you will find that that orders in the Church bring one into a relationship with Christ and the other members of His Body. There is nothing individualistic about orders - they are corporate. Orders incorporate one into the Body of Christ in particular ways. Orders are lived both in and outside of the liturgy. The man who is a priest relates to his bishop, and his fellow presbyters, to deacons, and to the laity as a priest, not as a deacon. And so it goes for each order in the Church from the catecheumens to the episcopate.

Why are orders about relationship - that is what the Holy Trinity is about. All three persons are distinct in unity, undivided and consubstantial. Yet, the Father is not the Son and does not substitute for him.

Certainly, priests can do what deacons do, or what acolytes do -that is not in question. But when a priest does what a deacon does, he does it as a priest and so should in liturgical services vest as a priest, even if he does some of what the deacon does.

Take in to consideration that the Church teaches as dogma that the orders of bishop, priest, and deacon are of Divine origin and essential to the Apostolic ministry. To diminish any of them or to create confusion between or among them, and is not acceptable practice that speaks of truth and authenticity.

Having watched the situation over several decades, I have noticed some discouraging phenomena:

It is not "unusual" for a priest serving as if he were a deacon, in diaconal vestments, nevertheless join the other presbyters in chanting the Institution Narrative during the Anaphora!

One continues to encounter the bizarre opinion that the diaconate is really a "way station" for married men awaiting an opportunity to be ordained to the presbyterate.

People who really should know better will hotly insist that a deacon, qua deacon, is worthless and useless. This is truly remarkable; it is not only offensive, it means that the person insisting on this erroneous view presumes to know better than the Holy Spirit, the Holy Apostles, and the tradition of the Church.

and on, and on.

Fr. Serge

Hi,



Correct, however, an instituted Acolyte (who was previously also instituted as Lector) should not exercise both ministries during the same Liturgy. If you're reading, you should not serve at the altar. If you're serving at the altar, you should not proclaim the readings.

It is not wrong for a priest to perform the duties assigned to a deacon or a sub-deacon if there are none available, but he should do so vested as priest without pretending to be in an order he no longer belongs to.

Shalom,
Memo

It is not wrong for a priest to perform the duties assigned to a deacon or a sub-deacon if there are none available, but he should do so vested as priest without pretending to be in an order he no longer belongs to.

According to the western theology of orders, at least, he doesn't pretend. See for instance this book [books.google.com]: "although some deacons later become priests and bishops, they remain deacons as well." (The book is published under the imprimatur of the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington.)

Speaking of the traditional Roman rite, it is correct, that, as SC says, a priest should take only one role in the liturgy. This is why, for instance, it is considered bad practice for the subdeacon to preach the sermon, even if he has faculties to do so and would normally do so if he was the celebrant. This practice is, after SC, deprecated even more strongly (legally, perhaps) than it was, by the approved authors even before SC.

Laws about priests not vesting as deacons, however, are found not in SC, but in the revised Ceremonial of Bishops. The revised Ceremonial of Bishops does not apply to the old rite, which has its own proper ceremonial of Bishops. So it is not wrong for them to vest and serve as such (since they still possess that order).

Be so kind to provide an actual Church document that maintains that priests and for that matter bishops also are in the order of deacon.

What liturgical books of the Latin rite permit a priest to serve as a deacon? Certainly not the Missale Romanum .

In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum , of the EF, the First Book, Chapter VIII, the assistant deacons are chosen from the canon deacons of the church. These canons were originally in the order of the diaconate but later only the title of canon deacon remained and the role was filled by priests. This is but an anomoly. Chapters IX and X refer to the deacon and subdeacon also being chosen from the canon deacons and canon subdeacons respectively. A theology of orders based on anomolies is bound to be defective.

If someone can find another reference either in offical Church teachings or offical liturgical books, I would appreciate the exact reference but nothing vague or in the realm of subjective opinions. "Saying that the earth is flat, does not make it flat."

The current Caeremoniale Episcoporum when prohibiting priests vesting as deacons uses as its authority SC 28. [Read the footnotes with care.] This is the Church giving an interpretation of SC 28 not the private opinion of an author. SC 28 is not a rubric but a liturgical norm. As stated in a previous post, the liturgical principles and norms of SC were written with the Extra Ordinary Form in mind as there was no Ordinary Form at the time. Rubrics are based on liturgical principles and norms not the other way around.

Do you not understand that regardless of what order a person is in, orders are relational? This mean that a person can be in only one order at any one time because entry into a new order changes one's relationship with Christ, the Church and the other various orders in the Church.

The deacon/diakonos is "one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, an agent,a courier, one who gets something done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone." To be a deacon, you need to be a deacon to someone, namely one's bishop. The presbyter or priest is not a deacon to his bishop but is a co-worker and concelebrant with his bishop. [Please read Lumen Gentium with care.] The priest's relationship to his bishop is not the deacon's relationship to his bishop. And God forbide the thought of a bishop acting as a deacon to a fellow bishop. Each bishop is a vicar of Christ - what theological foolishness is presented by speaking of bishops and priests as deacons. Furthermore, once a presbyter is ordained a bishop, he is no longer in the order of the presbyterate.

If the Ordinary Form prohibits presbyters from vesting as deacons why given SC 28 and its interpretation as found in the current Latin Caeremoniale Episcoporum is no prohibition in the Extra Ordinary Form? [The first principle, I teach in logic is consistency.] Again, I stress that Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with the 1962 Missale Romanum and accompanying books in mind. Also, note that canonical and rubrical prohibitions are only made when something is taking place that should not be happening. There is no need to prohibit priests from vesting as deacons if they are not doing it but are always acting as the priests they were ordained to be.

W.T.Ditewig's opinion on p26 of his 101 Questions & Anaswers on Deacons does not give any reference for the position he holds while he provides many references to offical Church teachings throughout his text. [I wonder why there is no reference?] All I can imagine is that this opinion is a faulty understanding of what "sacramental character" means. It is true that "sacramental character" is permanent which means it is not to be repeated. Thus, having received the diaconate once, one is never to receive it again. But it does not follow from this that a priest is a deacon any more that it follows that a priest is a layman or in the order of the laity. What makes you a layman, namely, the sacraments of baptism and chrismation which also impart "sacramental character" - meaning they are not to be repeated again. Do you condend that bishops, priests and deacons are laymen? Remember they do not lose the "character" of baptism or of chrismation.

Please also take the following into consideration:

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 1996 in section 73 clearly states: “Whoever has received these orders, [minor orders] therefore, is no longer a lay person, but becomes a member of what the liturgical books of most Eastern Churches call the “clergy” or “Sacred Orders.”

In section 75 of the same instruction we read: “The minor Orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination…. 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.”
While this Instruction is specific to the Eastern Catholic Churches, explicit mention is made regardless of rite or usage in the Latin Church. It does not say Roman rite but Latin Church.

But please, please provide an actual Church document that states clearly that bishops and presbyters are also deacons.

Did the first thousand years of Christianity just get it wrong?

As Fr. Serge has pointed out above, "This is truly remarkable; it is not only offensive, it means that the person insisting on this erroneous view presumes to know better than the Holy Spirit, the Holy Apostles, and the tradition of the Church."

If someone can find another reference either in offical Church teachings or offical liturgical books, I would appreciate the exact reference but nothing vague or in the realm of subjective opinions. 'Saying that the earth is flat, does not make it flat.'"

I'm not sure whether you're addressing the question of priests and bishops still being able to exercise the order of deacon liturgically or only whether they still possess the order? Your position is not that the practice of priests acting (and vesting) as deacons was always contra legem, is it? It would be helpful if we could distinguish the two questions. I will retract arguendem, the opinion expressed that priests are still also deacons. (Though I reject the idea that I have committed any offense by holding to views approved by the hierarchy of my Church and not retracted by them.) But I really cannot help but protest the idea that it is wrong for them to serve and vest as Deacons in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

It's difficult to provide references for the permissibility of something that was so widely understood (and is still widely understood) to be permitted. The liturgical writers consider it so obvious that a priest can serve and vest as a deacon they don't mention it.

Here's a reference from the Baltimore Catechism #4 [gutenberg.org]:

"The ordained ministers of the Church can perform the duties of any office for which they have ever been ordained, but not the duties of any office above that to which they have been ordained. For example, a subdeacon cannot take the place of a deacon at Mass, nor a deacon the place of a priest; but a priest may take either of their places, because he has, at one time, been ordained to both these offices."

The current Caeremoniale Episcoporum when prohibiting priests vesting as deacons uses as its authority SC 28. [Read the footnotes with care.]

If you are referring to CB 22, this is actually not the case. CB 22 reads in full:

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

"(28) See SC, art 28: DOL 1, no. 28"

So in fact, the reference to SC is for priests serving as deacons (which the rubrics then go on to permit in certain cases. The question of vesture is not referenced to SC.

As stated in a previous post, the liturgical principles and norms of SC were written with the Extra Ordinary Form in mind as there was no Ordinary Form at the time.

Yes and no. Clearly S.C. is written in reference to a reform to be undertaken. Furthermore, it refers to a liturgical office, not an order. It does not seem to me that (in the absence of a lector) it would be forbidden (in the ordinary form) for a deacon (vested in choir dress) to read the readings before the Gospel. He has received the liturgical office of lector and still holds it.

Do you not understand that regardless of what order a person is in, orders are relational? This mean that a person can be in only one order at any one time because entry into a new order changes one's relationship with Christ, the Church and the other various orders in the Church.

Surely there are some sorts of relationships that one can have and add additional relationships without severing the others. Say a man goes into business with his brother. Their relationship has changed. They are now business partners, but they do not cease to be brothers. Your argument would require more elaboration to be fully persuasive.

And God forbide the thought of a bishop acting as a deacon to a fellow bishop.

I can show you pictures of it. The Cardinal Deacons are just this, Bishops who act, liturgically, as Deacons of Honor to the Pope. Certainly the present Holy Father does not err in this regard?

If the Ordinary Form prohibits presbyters from vesting as deacons why given SC 28 and its interpretation as found in the current Latin Caeremoniale Episcoporum is no prohibition in the Extra Ordinary Form? [The first principle, I teach in logic is consistency.]

You are free to request of your local Latin rite Bishop that he submit a dubium to the Congregation for Divine Worship. Perhaps he will agree to do so and perhaps they will rule that a priest cannot function as a deacon in the EF. But yes, presently, the practice of the two forms of the Roman Rite is inconsistent. However, the Church has allowed the inconsistency.

Again, I stress that Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with the 1962 Missale Romanum and accompanying books in mind. Also, note that canonical and rubrical prohibitions are only made when something is taking place that should not be happening. There is no need to prohibit priests from vesting as deacons if they are not doing it but are always acting as the priests they were ordained to be.

Certainly, there could be other abusive practices no? Most likely what this section refers to is practices (authorized practices no less) such as the priest reading secreto the Gospel before it is proclaimed by the Deacon and the Epistle while it was chanted by the Subdeacon. These practices were changed in the 1960 Codex Rubricarum. These practices were considered by western liturgical scholars to be accretions. So they were removed. S.C. is (in part) retrospectively providing teaching to underline why this has been done.

What makes you a layman, namely, the sacraments of baptism and chrismation which also impart "sacramental character" - meaning they are not to be repeated again. Do you condend that bishops, priests and deacons are laymen? Remember they do not lose the "character" of baptism or of chrismation.

No, but I contend that they are still Christians, which is what one is made by the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism, leaves an indelible mark on the soul, but to say that it makes one a layman and that this is then unmade, by orders strikes me as strange.

In section 75 of the same instruction we read: “The minor Orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination…. 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.”
While this Instruction is specific to the Eastern Catholic Churches, explicit mention is made regardless of rite or usage in the Latin Church. It does not say Roman rite but Latin Church.

But please, please provide an actual Church document that states clearly that bishops and presbyters are also deacons.

Did the first thousand years of Christianity just get it wrong?

As Fr. Serge has pointed out above, "This is truly remarkable; it is not only offensive, it means that the person insisting on this erroneous view presumes to know better than the Holy Spirit, the Holy Apostles, and the tradition of the Church."

It is also distressing when it is presumed that the Latin Church somehow defected from the true practice of the faith for hundreds of years (and up to the present) by allowing priests (and Bishops) to function as deacons. The present Holy Father has allowed this practice both before and after his elevation. He participated in it as a Cardinal and as a priest ( serving at his brother's first Mass [img230.imageshack.us] as subdeacon. They had both been ordained on the same day). Two weeks ago I watched priests of the Archdiocese of Newark serve as Deacons of Honor to His Excellency the Archbishop of Newark, while Solemn Mass was celebrated in his presence with a priest vesting and acting as the Deacon of the Mass.

I apologize that I've only hit the high points of your response, I have had limited time in which to reply. I also apologize if this all comes off as rather strongly worded, it's not my intention to be offensive, but I think it is proper that I defend the practice of the Churches in which I worship and the priests, bishops, and Pontiff who I serve.

One further point, I agree with Fr. Serge completely:

"People who really should know better will hotly insist that a deacon, qua deacon, is worthless and useless. This is truly remarkable; it is not only offensive, it means that the person insisting on this erroneous view presumes to know better than the Holy Spirit, the Holy Apostles, and the tradition of the Church."

Surely, I have in no way stated that "a deacon, qua deacon, is worthless and useless." And so do not fall under the censure that you quote (at least for that reason.)

I also agree with Fr. Serge's other points, though I have not witnessed priests serving as deacons chanting the anaphora (or reciting the Roman Canon) I would certainly find that objectionable. Nor do I deprecate in the least the dignity of the deaconate as a permanent position.

Priests vesting as deacons, sounds like officers wearing private's uniforms. Seriously, what would be the point in doing this? The Liturgy is not a stage show or opera.

Dear Mr. Benedict,

Thanks for your response. It helps me understand the mindset that defends the practice of priests vesting as deacons.

Possibly someone can answer this question: in that priests are not permitted to vest as deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite why are they permitted to vest as deacons in the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite? Given what JBenedict has said in his defence of the practice, it would seem rather punitive to prohibit priests from vesting as deacons and one should only receive a punshiment for something one should not do. If I follow JBenedict's argument, the priest is a deacon yet priests are being told not to vest as deacons and act as deacons liturgically. What possible sense does this make? Here, we have a man who is both priest and deacon and is being told he can only function liturgically as a priest. Rather harsh. Where is the consistency in this matter?

Bureaucrats, whether ecclesiastical or secular, do not usually enjoy the highest reputation for consistency (or logic).

Fr. Serge

Hello,



I do not believe that the theology of Holy Orders would change between one form and another of the SINGLE Roman Rite.

Could you please substantiate your assertion that the guidelines in the Ceremonial of Bishops do not apply to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

Could you please substantiate your assertion that the guidelines in the Ceremonial of Bishops do not apply to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

The Missal does not contain all that is required to celebrate the Mass in either form of the Roman Rite. The permission to use either form of the Missal, neccesarily includes permission to use the Gradual and Ceremonial (and in the case of the OF the Lectionary) of that rite. It's not possible to celebrate the 1962 Missal without reference to the Ceremonial (and the full body of liturgical law) you won't know what to do.

Archbishop Burke of the Apostolic Signatura and Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera (link to pictures) [newliturgicalmovement.org], who is head of the Congregation for Divine Worship have both celebrated the ancient use according to the old Ceremonial of Bishops in Rome in the last year, in St. Peter's and the Lateran Basillicas respectively. Surely the head of the Vatican's highest court and the head of the Congregation in charge of liturgy know the mind of the Church on which ceremonial is to be used? At the Cardinal's Mass the Deacon was Fr John McDaniels of Australia (vested in dalmatic) and Subdeacon was Fr Tim Finigan from the U.K. (in tunicle).

Cardinal Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was of course, just present in Nebraska at the consecration of the FSSP Seminary chapel there in the old rite according to the old Pontifical and Ceremonial. Furthermore, Pope Benedict celebrated Mass according to the old Ceremonial before his elevation to the Papacy. How much more unanimous could it be at the highest levels of the Latin hierarchy?

One slight clarification upon what Father Protodeacon David stated:

It is more correct to state that the current Extraordinary Form WAS the Ordinary Form at that time. Therefore, SC #28 MUST apply to the then ordinary form, which is now the extraordinary form.

JB,

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing: Protodeacon David is talking about the appropriateness of these actions from an Eastern perspective, with a view to fostering a greater mutual understanding between East and West and helping the West to regain a perspective that looks back through two millennia, rather than only as far as the Council of Trent.

From this perspective, the historical use of presbyters to perform the deacon's liturgical function is an anomaly that was necessitated by another anomaly--the complete abandonment of the diaconate as a functioning ministry within the Latin Church (a practice that was very eloquently decried by Trent itself, as Protodeacon David shared with us).

The real problem is that there seems to be a widespread assumption that there is no reconciliation possible between the TLM itself and V-II. In other words, any directives from V-II or afterwards regarding the Liturgy are seen as having nothing whatsoever to do with the TLM--as if they existed in separate universes or something. Many of those who hate the TLM wrongly imagine it to be some kind of repudiation of V-II, while many of those who love the TLM wrongly imagine the same thing!


Let us pray that the RCC will finally see things clearly and shed these misconceptions!


Peace,
Deacon Richard