www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Trying to Understand the Diaconate

1. As far as I know all priests (or at least most) are first ordained to the diaconate.

2. I read an article about a Byzantine who was a deacon for many years (married first) and after 10+ years was ordained a priest.

Do all priest have within their call to the priesthood the call to the diaconate? Is this why a permanent married deacon who later aspires to be a priest is still following his vocation?

What are your thoughts? I am trying to understand the difference between the two.

The idea that there is some division between "permanent" and "transitional" deacons is something of a red herring related to the Latin Church's restoration of the diaconate as an office in its own right (and not just a way-station on the road to priesthood), combined with the Latin Church's rule of mandatory celibacy for presbyters. Now, that in itself was something of a step down, since the original rule applied to everyone from deacon on up (some collections of canons say subdeacon and up). Once the Latin Church decided that it would ordain married men to the diaconate, it had to distinguish. But in fact, a single man ordained to the diaconate can at any point be ordained a presbyter in the Latin Church.

On the other hand, in the Eastern Churches, no such division exists, and any man ordained to the diaconate, whether single or married, can at any point in his life be ordained to the presbyterate if his bishop so desires.

Well put Stuart. Sort of like worrying if someone is a "permanent" and "transitional" priest.

I always worry about the priests who consider themselves "transitional".

Your questions:
1. Current canonical legislation requires all candidates for the presbyterate and the episcopate to be ordained to the diaconate. This "cursus honorum" leads to an understanding of the diaconate and minor orders as if there were little more than steps to the presbyterate. This practice has diminished the diaconate and minor orders along with eroding the hierarchical and corporate sense of the Church.

2. The term "permanent" deacon is misleading. There is only one order of diaconate in the Church: it is neither permanent nor transitional.

3. Once a deacon is ordained to the presbyterate, he is now to serve in the Church as a presbyter.

4. Aspiring to an order in the Church is not the same as a vocation. A vocation means one is called. This call comes directly from the bishop and is affirmed by the Church as a whole. I quote from the Archieratikon (Pontifical Service Book of the Byzantine Liturgy): Archdeacon to the bishop - "By the will of God and by the grace of the most holy and life-creating Spirit, and by blessing of our God-loving bishop, N,the devout deacon N, is lead forth to the presbyterate,command him, holy master." When the bishop vests the newly ordained presbyter, he exclaims: axios (worthy) and this is repeated by the clergy and then repeated by the laity.

3. To understand Holy Orders: don't separate this mystery from the Church as a whole; understand that the episcopate has the fullness of the Apostolic ministry; understand that presbyters are co-workers with the episcopate; understand that deacons are assistants first to the bishop and if so assigned by the bishop to a presbyter; understand that the presbyters make up a council but the deacons do not; understand that the bishop presides in the local Church and that presbyters preside in the place of the bishop when assigned; deacons do not have a presidential role (following Vatican II there has been some confusion in regards to this); never loose sight that the Church is the Body of Christ, hierarchically and corporately structured; keep in mind that all three orders are divinely instituted and are necessary for the Church to be Church, and any practice or theology that diminishes these orders is reprobate; keep in mind that the baptized and chrismated are also an order in the Church and are essential to it, for they are essential to Christ.

4. Carefully, study the practice and theology of orders in the first 1,000 years.

Part of the misunderstanding is due to the nature of the seminary educational system, which in many instances has distinct diaconal and presbyteral formation "tracks", with those who "aspire" to the presbyterate going one way, and those whose focus is solely the diaconate going another. Those in presbyteral formation, I think, look on it as equivalent to a five-year Bachelors/Masters program--they know going in that the advanced degree is their real objective. And this tends to depreciate the value of the diaconate as an Apostolically established order in its own right, a ministry of service with inherent value to the Church and to the world as a whole.

Roman deacons do have a presidential role, unlike any of the Eastern churches, and what I've read indicates that Roman praxis on blessings also dates to about the 9th century, permitting certain blessings to be given by deacons and even subdeacons, in the same mode as priests, but only within specific competences.

One of the most notable is the feast of St. Blaise... the Roman rubrics permit the deacon to bless throats during the mass using the candles, and the same formula as the priests.

Then again, Rome also ordained minor clerics Exorcists...

Giving a blessing is not a presidential role per se. The presidential function of the presbyter which is a sharing as a co-worker with the presidential role of the bishop is in the three ministries of liturgy, word, and charity. The deacon assists the bishop in these but he really does not preside any more than a layperson would preside. There can only be one presider in the local church and that is the bishop. The presbyters preside in place of the bishop when the bishop is not present, as they are co-workers with the bishop in the priestly role. The deacon is clearly not ordained to the priesthood but to a ministry of service to the bishop.

The presidential role in the ministries of liturgy, word, and charity are priestly functions, not diaconal. The liturgical and the canonical traditons make this quite clear.

In the post Vatican II Latin Church, the deacon might seem to be presiding or acting as proestos but he is not. Note that when the bishop or presbyter is present the deacon always assists. When no bishop or presbyeter is present the deacon may baptize solemnly and may act as the witness to a marriage and may conduct a funeral service. None of this is presidential in the priestly sense of the role. A lay person might also witness a marriage, baptize and certainly conduct a funeral service if necessary. And certainly the laity do not preside in the Church.

In the Byzantine tradition, the deacon does not vest, if there is no bishop or presbyter to be deacon for.

It should also be noted that the presidential role is much more than liturgical. The bishop presides in the local Church in the ministries of liturgy, word, and charity. The pastor of a parish does so in the local parish, the abbot in the monastery. Juridically, each does so in different ways. Clearly, the deacon does not juridically preside: he assists.

For a detailed study of the role of the Latin deacon prior to Vatican II see Richard E. Zenk, The Office of the Deacon in Ecclesiastical Law , Rome, 1969.

A limited presidential role is the nature of all non-bishop clerics... they preside only when their superiors are absent... even a priest is not presider when the bishop is present. For the traditional Byzantines, a deacon never takes a presidential role; for a Roman, the subdeacon could do so for the hours, a deacon for a number of services including exposition and benediction; post VII that has grown considerably.

Also, post V II, latin laymen are permitted to be vested in Alb to preside over the public liturgies of the Word (essentially, typica) by appointment of their proper pastor. Properly, they do so from the ambo/lecturn, while a deacon does so from the Altar. (Rubrics for same are in specific adapted books with a USCCB imprimateur, which notes that the deacon has always been competent for this, while the layman only recently has been granted the privilege... the books I was entrusted to use during a youth retreat by the pastor of a Roman parish, during a clergy retreat weekend; a specific form for a youth retreat was included).


And it should be noted, Father Protodeacon, that the UGCC has specifically started putting deacons in mission parishes with a presidential role in the absence of presbyters to conduct Typica for Sundays and Holy Days; the OCA have done likewise, tho' I know not which started first. In both cases, the instructions include vesting for leading Typica (with or without communion), and doing so in a manner different from a Reader's Typica. A reader's typica is always without communion, lead with the doors closed, and the sanctuary never entered... a deacons typica, per St Elias' website [saintelias.com], includes a vested deacon presiding as celebrant. The rubrics for which YOU are credited with recording.

While this may be "untraditional", it's clearly a presidential role in loco episcopus et presbyterus.

As for laymen witnessing a marriage: per canon law, it requires two laymen to do so. It only requires one deacon to do so. Per the CCEO, it's not normative. In the CIC, the deacon not only can, but if the celebrant, must give the blessings.

Presidential roles have two distinct meanings; one is the leader of the service, he who presides. The other is that of leader of the people, by which only the bishop is president.

"A limited presidential role is the nature of all non-bishop clerics..." This is simply not correct. The limited presidential role is only for presbyters. A role of "leadership" in prayer is not presidential. Please read carefully, what is written above by myself and the various ministries in which the bishop and presbyters preside. The presidential role is fundamentally priestly: the deacon is not ordained for the priesthood, and clerics in minor orders, and the laity are not in the ordained priesthood. The Latin liturgy of the hours unlike the Byzantine does not require a priestly presider. [Please don't tell me that the Byzantine hours can be done without a priest, I am very well aware of both Byzantine and Latin liturgy.]

Even when the deacon vests for Typica, he is never the "celebrant". He is vesting in order to distribute the Holy Mysteries. The deacon does not act in place of the bishop or presbyter. I very clearly did not give the deacon a presidential liturgical role in the Typica that you refer to. If anyone "leads" the Typica, it is the cantor.

The term "presider" has been used and is being used as you say as "leader of the service". My contention is this is simply incorrect. This is one of the reasons why some find it difficult to understand the diaconal role in the Church. This type of language leads to confusion in ministry in the Church. To preside in the Church, the presider must be ordained to the priesthood. Deacons are not presiders or celebrants because they are not priests, rather they are ordained to assist the presider.

Giving blessings is not presidential for as you point out correctly, deacons and laity in the Latin Church can do such.

Why refer to the deacon or the lay person as a presider or celebrant - it only causes confusion. When there is a need for a priest and there is not one, it is foolish to make the deacon a substitute. The solution is simple: ordain a presbyter. Confusion of liturgical roles leads to confusion in the ecclesia.

Is it even possible for a deacon to vest in the absence of a presbyter or bishop, given that he must receive a blessing to put on the sticharion, orarion and epimanikia?

Stuart,

According to the official texts, the deacon does not vest unless he receives a blessing from the celebrant. The Typica service referred to on the St. Elias web site that I penned for the then bishop allows the deacon to vest without a celebrant. The rational for that is that the bishop is giving a blessing to the deacon in each given situation or case. As the author of the text my contention is that it can be used only in extraordinary situations and only with the explicit blessing of the bishop in each situation. I also content that the deacon is not presiding or acting as a celebrant. The deacon is acting as a minister of Holy Communion.

I agree with your assessment, and that it falls to the bishop's oikonomia to depute an extraordinary minister to deal with extraordinary occasions. It is often forgotten that the bishop is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist (and all the other sacraments, for that matter), and that the presbyter administers most of them only because the bishop has habitually delegated that authority to him.

That in mind, I wonder if originally the presbyter could vest without the explicit blessing of the bishop, in the same manner as the deacon?

Stuart,

By the time the attire of the clergy became "vestments", the habitual transfer of the bishop's presidential role to presbyters was already established. I cannot be exact on this but the habitual transfer was already established by the early 4th century. It is in the 4th century and beyond with a change in civil attire that "vestments" develop as vestments.

I think the real point is what you have clearly stated. The presbyter does not act on his own initiative but only with the blessing of the bishop. However, he acts in a fundamentally different way than the deacon. [To be continued.]

Yes, it would have to be in the early fourth century at latest, because that is when the Church eliminated the office of chorbishop. From then on, bishops would reside only in cities and major towns, with diocesan boundaries to take in the hinterlands, so as not to dilute the authority of the bishop. So presbyters were deputed to the small towns and the villages. And once the Church grew to the point that there was more than one church in every city, presbyters became deputed celebrants there, as well, with the bishop presiding regularly only in his cathedral church.