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

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.

The portion of my post that you quoted was actually in response to Memo who expressed the (incorrect) opinion that the current Ceremonial of Bishops was to be used with the 1962 Missale Romanum, rather than the prior Ceremonial of Bishops. I provide as a rebuttal the fact that the most senior churchmen of the Latin rite have acted otherwise.

I completely agree that ideally one would use Deacons and Subdeacons who had been elevated that high in the hierarchy and no higher in the celebration of the rites of the Church.

However, many members of this forum have accused the Roman rite clerics who engaged and continue to engage in this practice of more than just falling short of the ideal, but of falsifying the liturgy, being disobedient to the Church, and not following the proper liturgical law. Fr. Protodeacon himself seemed to express the opinion that this practice, beyond being undesirable is illegal:

"Sadly, legislation does not always insure an orthopraxy. In the Latin Church there seems to be a small but growing number who believe that the practice of presbyters vesting and serving as deacons is quite fine in the Extraordinary Form.

Please note that the Missale Romanum 1962 is silent on this matter.
In Notitae 9 (1973) the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship stated: “It is altogether out of place for a priest vested as a deacon to exercise the deacon’s function.”

Now perhaps, I was misreading him, but by contrasting the practice of adherents to the Extraordinary Form with the law applying to the current rite, he gave the impression to me that he was stating that the practice was actually illicit and not merely undesireable.

I think it's important to remember that neither the East nor the West has a privileged position in these discussions. There must be a process of mutual understanding. The overly strong words used against the common practice of the saints of the Latin rite are not a great example of that process (e.g. decrying many Latin liturgies over the centuries and down to the present day as false, or comparing them to opera or theater.)

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).

But the diaconate wasn't abandoned as a functioning ministry, that's really the odd thing. The function of the diaconate was most certainly maintained, both in the liturgy and in the assignment of priests to run charities, etc. other traditionally diaconal non-liturgical functions. The practice of the Latin Church for many centuries suggests that they saw it as legitimate (though less than ideal) for priests to exercise diaconal functions.

I don't think the example of Trent is really dispositive here. It's not clear to me whether the quoted section of Trent is really talking about higher ranking clerics taking lower ranking roles, or whether it is talking about lower ranking clerics (or non-clerics) taking higher ranking roles. The Latin Canon law for instance (and the books on casuistry) discuss the case of the subdeacon acting as deacon (which incurred, IIRC, the penalty of irregularity) and also the layman or minor cleric acting as subdeacon (which under the Tridentine legislation was considered a major order). The latter practice was allowed with some differentiation in roles, so that the substitute subdeacon didn't do those things seen as being essentially subdiaconal (this really gets into the weeds of pre-Vatican II liturgical practice, so I won't go further into it.) Also, this section of Trent seems to prohibit the widespread practice of non-clerics substituting as acolytes in the services (which I understand to be widespread even in the Eastern Churches). It doesn't permit lay substitutes, but married clerics to substitute for celibate clerics. So you're young unmarried altar servers would be out of a job if it was literally implemented. And, since lay altar servers are not clerics at all, I have a hard time seeing how they're not more of a problem in terms of the honesty of the services than clerics "dressing-down". As an altar server, I get mistaken for a priest all the time. I've never seen a priest who acted as deacon get mistaken for a deacon. (Though perhaps this would be more of a problem if we could get more deacons interested in taking up this task.)

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!

If you're attributing to me the opinion that directives from V-II or afterwards have nothing to do with the TLM, you're wrong. Clearly, the principles expressed are to be attended to and considered.

However, if you think that merely liturgical laws made post-1962 are today to be applied in a legal, rather than a merely suasive way to celebrations in the extraordinary form in cases where they conflict with the rules of the 1962 missal or the legitimate customs (having the force of law) of the communities celebrating according to that rite, I'm afraid you are mistaken. There are some places where the law has been changed: the Good Friday prayers, the communion fast, the time of celebration, the permission to read the readings in English, some other things relating to the 1983 Code of Canon law, but for the most part (for better or worse) the liturgical laws of 1962 apply to the Missale Romanum 1962. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has even recognized certain pre-1962 usages as legitimate customs in places where they've endured.

To argue that those who celebrate the 1962 rite should spend a lot of time worrying about making their celebrations more complaint with the second Vatican Council, is also, I think to ignore one of the major reasons that the Popes have seen fit to authorize the wide and generous provision of this rite. There are many people (rightly or wrongly) deeply attached to the pre-Vatican II usages. The Popes have sought to prevent (and to repair) splits over non-essentials that they see as, fundamentally, disputes over which usages are "good" and which are "better". They've decided that they won't act in such a way as to alienate those who see non-essentials as essentials, even if it's within their power strictly speaking to make such rulings.

I hope that makes some sense...

Nearly 50 years on, I think it's also legitimate to (humbly) consider whether all the (non-doctrinal) decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council were wise. That goes even more for the decisions about the implementation of the of the Council.

JB,

You fail to distinguish here between diakonia as a function of the Church, and the diaconate as a specific ordained ministry of the Church. This is an important distinction, since it is ludicrous to try and argue that the diaconate--as a specific ordained ministry of the Church--was not abandoned by the RCC prior to Vatican II. (Note also that I am not referring here to an ordained "state," but an actual, functioning ordained ministry.)

Furthermore, I would go so far as to hypothesize that this abandonment came about precisely because the diaconate crosses the otherwise clear boundary separating clergy from laity--something unacceptable to a clericalist mindset.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Epiphanius,

JB is proving the elimination of the diaconate in his attempt to claim its preservation.

Or more correctly, that the order of presbyters was functioning as deacons outside the liturgy as well, and thus rendering witness that the proper minister of diakonia is the presbyter, something declared erroneous at Trent.

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium 1963 was directed to the liturgy of its day. It must as any text be read in its context. This is a basic principle of exegesis (analysis) and hermeneutics (interpretation).
2. SC states in §1 “Accordingly it [the Council] sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.” The liturgy it is speaking of is the liturgy of its day, i.e. the liturgy celebrated according to the Missale Romanum 1962 and the accompanying liturgical books such as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The last edition typical of the CE being 1886, the original dating from 1600. To take the position that SC is not addressing the liturgy as exemplified in these texts is untenable.
3. The CE of 1600 is pivotal in any discussion of presbyters vesting as deacons. It is the textural source for the practice: cf. Book I, Chapters VII, VIII, and IX.
4. In the context of the Episcopal Mass, the assistant deacons, the deacon of the Mass and the subdeacon of the Mass are drawn from the Canons of the Cathedral Church. Unlike today, originally the Canons of a church included all of the clergy that were attached to that church. Here, the word Canon means a list. In other words the clergy whose names were on the list were the Canons of the church. The list of Canons was divided into the various orders; namely, Canon presbyters, Canon deacons, Canon subdeacons, and following. Canon deacons and Canon subdeacons were not presbyters; they were what they were called. There was no discontinuity between the nomenclature and the actual order. Even throughout the Middle Ages many of these Canonries were filled by those in the actual order and not by those in a higher or lower one. However, eventually, all the Canons of the Cathedral were in the order of presbyter but the titles of Canon deacon and Canon subdeacon remained. This clearly is an anachronism. But the anachronism is not seen for what it is because of the cursus honorum. The CE is the text that permits the practice of presbyters vesting as deacons and subdeacons, not the Missale Romanum which is silent on the practice.
5. From at least the late 4th century a significant shift in the practice of Holy Orders begins to take shape. Prior to this time, there was no need to rise in the ranks from one order to the next. The textual and archaeological evidence shows that generally a man once ordained to one of the orders remained in that order for life. In this original paradigm bishops had the fullness of the apostolic mission and are the successors of the Apostles, presbyters were the council of the bishop, and deacons were the attendants or agents of the bishop. Since these three orders are all of Divine institution, each is necessary for the apostolic mission to be carried out. The Apostles established this paradigm to carry on the mission and mandate that Christ gave them.
6. With a great influx of converts from the establishment of the peace of Constantine, the Church adapted pastorally. In order to train those for Holy Orders, the cursus honorum became firmly established over the following centuries. Previously, ordination was per saltem. There had been no requirement that a bishop was first ordained a presbyter or a deacon before ordination to the episcopate. Candidates for the episcopacy could be chosen from the laity, from the diaconate, or from the presbyterate, and ordained directly to the episcopate. Many deacons, especially in the Church of Rome were ordained directly to the episcopate without ordination to the presbyterate. [A detailed study of this can be found in John Gibaut, The Cursus Honorum, A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination, Peter Lang, 2000.] The cursus honorum with prescribed interstices of considerable duration was intended to prevent hasty ordination to the episcopate. In the pre-Constantinian Church to be a bishop implied a great possibility of martyrdom, while in the post-Constantinian Church to be a bishop implied power, honour and wealth. The Church needed a way to screen candidates. Eventually, the interstices became condensed and seen as an absolute necessity. No one could be ordained to a higher order without first being ordained to the preceding orders. As the evidence shows this is a canonical necessity not a theological one.
7. The development of the so called private Mass in the Latin Church relegates the liturgical functions of the deacon and those in minor orders to the presbyter. In the private Mass, the presbyter assumes all liturgical offices. The corporate sense of the whole Church acting as the Body of Christ in various orders is lost. The private Mass becomes the lowest common denominator. The presbyter because he has passed through the curus honorum can assume all liturgical offices except those reserved to the episcopacy.
8. Given the cursus honorum and the private Mass, it is not surprising that the following principle is established: he who can do more can do less – qui potest plus, potest minus. Thus, the diaconate and the minor orders fall into disuse. The goal of the cursus honorum for most clerics is the presbyterate, as only a few can achieve the episcopate. When the communal or corporate sense of liturgy is lost only what is deemed necessary is left. When the communal sense of liturgy is lost, the corporate sense of Church is lost and the understanding of Church is distorted. The Church is both communal and hierarchical. Both are needed and need to be manifested in an active way. The Holy Trinity is a hierarchical communion of persons – so the Church should be and so should her liturgy be. This can only be achieved liturgically with a real and coherent practice of all the orders in the Church. If an order is real and of Divine institution it is not be assumed into another order.
9. There is no teaching of a Council, or official papal pronouncement that once a man is ordained a presbyter, he remains also in the order of the diaconate. Can the presbyter do what the deacon does liturgically? Yes, but he does it as a presbyter not as a deacon. To be a deacon, one must be an assistant or attendant to someone. In the Church one is a deacon because one is ordained to be the attendant of one’s bishop. This establishes between the bishop and the deacon a particular type of relationship. The deacon is an agent, an attendant of his bishop and gets things done on the behalf of his bishop at the bishop’s command. The deacon never acts liturgically without the celebrant except in necessity such as an emergency baptism. [This was the diaconal liturgical practice in all the Churches sui iuris of the Catholic Church until Vatican II. Vatican II made some significant changes in regards to this and allowed the deacon in the Latin Church in certain circumstances to act as the celebrant. This of course is an entirely different discussion.] For that matter the deacon never is to act without a blessing from his bishop and in lieu of his bishop, the presbyter that the deacon serves while the presbyter represents the bishop. Once a deacon has been ordained to the presbyterate, his relationship changes with his bishop. He becomes a prudent cooperator and co-celebrant with his bishop as a member of the presbyterium or sacerdotal college. He no longer is the personal attendant and agent of his bishop. If he was there would be no need for bishops to have deacons for presbyters would do both what deacons do and presbyters do. It is a great blunder to equate diakonia which is incumbent on all of the baptized solely with the order of the diaconate. When deacons assist the bishop in his diakonia as the overseer of the Church, they do so as his agents and attendants. When presbyters assist the bishop in his diakonia, they do so a cooperators and co-workers with the bishop. While the relationship of the deacons to their bishop and the presbyters to their bishop bear some similarity they are anything but identical. If the relationships were identical, the orders would be identical as would their functions, liturgical and non-liturgical.
10. In § 3 SC states, “That is why the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that the practical norms should be established. Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.” SC is not establishing rubrics or in the strict sense laws. It is establishing a “promotion and reform of the liturgy” of the Roman rite in particular and where the principles and norms extend to other rites (this would include the various Eastern rites) those rites as well. What SC is establishing in Chapter I are general and particular liturgical principles and norms.
11. In Chapter I of SC in those sections under the title Norms Drawn from the Hierarchic and Communal Nature of the Liturgy there are a number of sections particularly pertinent to the topic of presbyters vesting as deacons and subdeacons. Let us look first at §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 bishops.” (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 effect 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.” Since the Church is hierarchical, it is important to understand what this term means in the Christian understanding of it, not in the secular. The paradigm of all hierarchy is the Holy Trinity. All three persons are equal but not the same. The Father is the Arche, not the Son or the Holy Spirit. So the Church is hierarchical for it is established in the hierarchy of the Kingdom of God, Kingdom. (cf. the Gospel of the Last Judgement in Mt 25.) In the liturgy which is also hierarchical “liturgical services touch individual members of the Church in different ways, depending on their orders, [and] their role in the liturgical services.” Clearly, this states that there are different orders in the Church and different orders have different liturgical services. It does not assume that any one member belongs to more than one order simultaneously.
12. In § 28, it states: “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.” Minister – this refers to bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the minor orders. Layman – this refers to those who are baptized and chrismated. “Should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office” – thus ministers do what they are assigned and the laity do what they are assigned. Bishops do what bishops are assigned, presbyters what presbyters are assigned, and deacons what deacons are assigned. When this happens, the Church is what it is and is seen for what it is.
13. How does the current CE of 1984 understand § 28 of SC? It is sighted as a footnote in § 22 of the current CE, “Presbyter taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; [footnote: § 28 of SC] in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.” Is this difficult to understand? It says clearly that presbyters may do some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.
14. Does the current CE govern the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite? No.
15. Do the liturgical norms and principles [these are not rubrics] of SC address the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite? Yes. Simply, because SC was written with what is now known as the EF in mind. SC § 28 not only addresses the Roman rite, it also addresses all the rites of the Catholic Church.
16. In regards to the hermeneutic of continuity what is important is the mind of the legislator not the practices of various individuals or even communities.

At this point, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that the practice of priests vesting and serving as Deacons in the EF is forbidden, not by the CB, but by the correct interpretation of S.C.?

16. In regards to the hermeneutic of continuity what is important is the mind of the legislator not the practices of various individuals or even communities.

This is an entirely false distinction. As the New commentary on the Code of Canon Law puts it:

"The mind of the legislator (mens legislatoris) does not mean the subjective mind of the legislator or his successor--what he inwardly thinks or wills--because that is largely unknowable and even irrelevant. It is the objective text of the law that must be observed, not what anyone presumes the legislator might have been thinking when he made the law. The mind of the legislator does not refer to a human person's mind at all. Instead, it is a construct, an "institutional figure" signifying the whole institution of the law itself--the canonical system--especially the basic rules, values and principles that underlie and support it." (pg. 75)

Part of that body of law... the canonical system is "the practices of various individuals or even communities". The Code of Canon Law itself says (Canon 27), "Custom is the best interpreter of laws."

Furthermore, if you deny that a legitimate custom has been established, in cases involving lacunae, such as whether priests may continue to vest as deacons in the EF, something about which there is no precise legislation, we have principles on where to turn:

"Canon 19 - If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons."

Cardinal Levada, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, and Archbishop Burke have all participated in celebrations in the EF where priests took part vested and serving as deacons. When the heads of the CDF (2: Levada & Ratzinger), CDW, Congregation for Clergy, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (2: Castrillón & Levada), and Apostolic Signatura all do something, I think we can safely say that it is the practice of the Roman Curia and not contrary to the mind of the legislator as it is understood by Rome. I can name for you at least a dozen other bishops who have acted similarly. It also starts to look like the constant opinion of learned persons.

Furthermore, the Cardinal Deacons in papal liturgies in the O.F. down to the present day continue to vest in dalmatics.

I don't deny that it would be preferable for Deacons and Subdeacons holding those ranks in the hierarchy to take these positions in the liturgy (possibly excepting the Cardinal Deacons) when it's possible. I encourage that practice whenever I can. But to deny the faithful the solemn services of their rite because only priests are available and not deacons would be ridiculous. (Indeed, this is the position of the O.F. C.B., which allows priests to take most of these parts.)

A couple more points, but I must head to bed...

In the private Mass, the presbyter assumes all liturgical offices.

This is actually not true. The private Mass also requires an acolyte or someone to substitute for him. The priest of the Latin rite is permitted to celebrate totally alone only in cases of necessity and traditionally this was interpreted strictly.

When the communal or corporate sense of liturgy is lost only what is deemed necessary is left.

I don't believe that someone can look at the traditional Pontifical Solemn Mass at the throne with its dozens of ministers and honestly claim that the liturgy has been reduced to some desiccated notion of necessity or that the corporate sense of the liturgy has been lost, even if the only actual levels of the hierarchy represented are bishops, priests, and laymen.

I frequently saw priest say Mass alone in the 1960s. I had heard of places where one priest would serve another priest's Mass after saying their own Mass. If there was no server Mass still went ahead.

Dear JBenedict,

Thanks for your thoughts on the topic and the informtion that you provide.

JBenedict:

SC, on its face, actively demeans and forbids the practice of priests vesting as deacons. It does not, however outlaw functioning as deacon, tho' it does prohibit doing so if a deacon is present. Nor does it outlaw a priest serving as subdeacon, unless a subdeacon is present. But when so serving, he should also be vested as a priest. SC is crystal clear.

Dear JBenedict,

Would you be so kind to answer the following?

1. Does Sacrosanctum Concilium apply to the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite and if so how does it apply?

2. Why are presbyters not permitted to vest as deacons in the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite?

3. Is the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches Section 75 wrong? [This section is provided in full in previous posts.]

With thanks.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated on December 4 1963. So what was the liturgy in use a the time of the promulgation?

The Missale Romanum 1962 was in use when Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated. This Mass is now referred to by Summorum Pontificium as the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is a Pastoral Constitution from an Ecumenical Council.

While reformable (because it is not dogmatic in nature), unless the document explicitly addresses a particular "feature" of the Roman Rite, it applies to all the Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome.

Shalom,
Memo

Once again I point out that the vast (or half-vast) majority of these comments deal with the Roman rite! Are there not sufficient sites out there in cyberspace for you to blog on these matters? Please let's keep the Byzantine Form Byzantine (Orthodox or Catholic) or at least Eastern!

Possibly one of the many who view this particular post might be able to be able to respond to my question in regards to "Instruction for Applying Liturgical Prescriptions..." section 75: is it correct or is it not correct? While this very significant document is directed to the Eastern Catholic Churches it does refer to the practice of the Latin Church in regards to my initial question. It is not possible to completly avoid the Latin Church in this matter even if one wished to. I would most appreciate theological comments and not those that focus on rubrics or norms. The rubrics and norms are quite clear and easily accessable. With thanks.