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

The Cardinal Deacons and the Use of the Dalmatic:

The cardinal deacons wear the dalmatic when serving the Pontiff, either in the Holy Mass or in other liturgical celebrations, but not when concelebrating with him. In this second case, they wear the vestments proper to the priest celebrant, that is the chasuble. To wear the dalmatic when serving the pontiff serves in reality to manifest exteriorly their function as ministers of the Pontiff. Without forgetting that, as history has shown us, the truth of the sign of the dalmatic does not necessarily suppose that only deacons can wear it.

On the other hand, Bishops wear it in greater solemnities, under the chasuble, or even as a principle vestment in consecrating an altar or the washing of feet. In this last case, as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum 301 indicates, the bishop takes off the mitre and chasuble but not the dalmatic. It is desired to place emphasis not so much on the fullness of the priesthood as the character of service of the episcopal ministry. In the case of cardinal deacons vesting with the dalmatic, it serves to underline their character as servants, strict collaborators of the Roman Pontiff even in the liturgy. The dalmatic is a sign of service, dedication to the Bishop and others. But even when the bishop wears the dalmatic it is to serve: whether in the washing of feet, or in special liturgical service performed by bishops--cardinal deacons--in the presence of the Roman Pontiff.
(translation from Italian by NLM)

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091125_cardinali-diaconi_it.html

I thought that this (cardinal deacons [sic]) would pop up...however, this practice not only contradicts the current Latin rite Ceremonial of Bishops, it provides no theological content. The practice is anachronistic and defies a satisfactory rational explanation.

The dalmatic is first and foremost a papal vestment not diaconal. The popes were the first to wear it and later extended it as a privilege to their own deacons. Bishops were the dalmatic not because they were once deacons but because it was originally part of the vesture of the Bishop of Rome.

These cardinal deacons are in reality bishops and they do not on a day to day basis act a deacons but as bishops. If they are real deacons why don't they act as deacons all of the time? Fr. Deacon Lance are you not a deacon all of the time just as I am or only when you are vested? (No need to answer the questions.)Do vestments make you a deacon? Do they not rather identify you as a deacon? Is it not your relationshiip with you bishop that makes you a deacon? You are a deacon because you are a deacon to your bishop.

Certainly, cardinals of whom the most are bishops(a few are presbyters)have an episcopal communion with the Bishop of Rome and if they don't everything we say about the communion of Churches is negated. The communion of Churches is a communion that requires episcopal communion. Concelebration as Fr. Robert Taft has demonstrated historically is first about bishops (not priests) and the communion of Churches. Bishops should act as bishops, priests as priests, and deacons as deacons. Pray tell, what would be wrong with this way of acting?

Let me put the question this way: why would an orthodox bishop vest and serve as a deacon? Why do orthodox priests not vest and serve as deacons? What was the practice in the first thousand years when the Churches of East and West were united? Was this original practice defective and had to be changed? My guess is that the practice changed and then a "theology" had to be created to defend the practice.

Such is usually the case with all innovations and abuses that become accepted usage.

Disclaimer: the above was posted for informational purposes only and does not imply the agreement of the poster with stated practice.

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thanks for the clarification, however, I would really have been surprised if you were a keen supporter of the practice. Thanks for putting the information forward. It reveals not only a liturgical problem but essentially an ecclesial one that is quite foreign to the Eastern Christian tradition. It brings into question the real and coherent practice of orders which is explicitly enjoined on the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Instruction for the Applying... section 75.

Is there any possibility that the principle of subsidiarity could apply to this question: Should priests vest as deacons and serve as such?

I am well aware that it is an ethical principle especially in regards to state invervention which can pose a threat to personal freedom and initiative.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads in section 1883: The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which 'a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.'

I thought that I had heard every attempt to justify the unjustifiable practice of presbyters pretending to be deacons. But the principle of subsidiarity? Well, I suppose that it's at least an exotic (downright esoteric) entry into the lists.

But alas, the principle of subsidiarity has no application here - one might just as well argue that acolytes should serve as deacons, or that deacons should be "allowed" to confer major orders.

Moreover the principle of subsidiarity might reasonably be invoked to oppose the practice of presbyters pretending to be deacons.

There is one simple solution to the whole madnewss: ordain more deacons. It's not that painful.

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge,

I am of the opinion that subsidiarity could never support presbyters serving as deacons but rather is an argument against the practice.

I fully agree that the only satisfactory approach to the question is to ordain deacons if they are needed. Given that there are about 35,000 deacons in the Catholic Church at present, it might also be possible to train some of them to serve in the Extraordinary Form of the Latin rite. How difficult could this be?

The problem, Father Protodeacon, isn't the church being able to train them, but the Traditionalist Latin faithful (1) accepting them, (2) not defecting to the schismatics over them, (3) generating non-schismatic candidates for them.

Many of the Traditionalist crowd reject married clergy. My local area's SSPX chapel's faithful often decry the practice of married deacons as "an innovation and heresy." (NOTE: I'm commenting on the laymen, not the SSPX itself, which makes no such claim...) Ironically, these same folks see nothing wrong with a layman serving in lieu of an instituted/ordained acolyte... and expropriating the title... and some support laymen even serving as subdeacons. They even object to married ECC priests serving the EF.

A widespread adoption of married deacons for the EF would drive many to the SSPX, and others still further to the SSPV and similar.

If what you say is the case, it cries out for catecheis and pastoral care. This is the approach to those who hold such ideologies.

However, it is not prudent to let the intemperate and misguided opinions of some determine the liturgical practice and more importantly the ecclesiology of the Church. Liturgy does many things and one is to manifest the Church. Thus, liturgical practice should not be a matter of the tastes, whims, ideologies and favoritisms of anyone regardless of their position, influence or wealth.

These misguided folk need the care of their pastors both by word and example. A distorted understanding and practice of the mystery of Holy Orders which affects the Church in a number of ways is not to be justified by speaking of the practice and its defense as 'traditional'. It is not orthodox and therefore is not part of the tradition of the catholic Church.

I agree... but the practical matter is a great number of so-called traditionalists are actually heretics or hold other still serious errors

Some are sedevaticanists.
Others hold the "Magic Words" error (the error that it is the liturgical language itself that gives power to the anaphora).
Others hold to the error of inalterability of the praxis.
Many hold to the error of "liturgy as dogma" (rather than as discipline), coupled to a definition of Tradition that is flawed: Tradition is what was done the day I was baptized.
A shocking number are of the "Saved by ritual praxis alone" error. (The "I only need to go to confession and a valid mass to be saved" error.)
Not a few believe the Roman missal is unchanged since the 800's...
and a large fraction reject the Vatican II council as a whole.

They need a LOT of catechesis, but they are hostile to the catechism... as "fruit of VII"...

There are some who are faithful Catholics with a desire for the older form... but they tend to be the quiet portion of the "traditionalist movement."

I think it prudent to take the approach of good example, prayer, catecheis, care and charity. God's grace will do most of the work. I should take care not be a stumbling block.

If the presbyters would always act as priests and cardinal deacons [sic] who are bishops or priests would always act as the bishops or priests they are this problem which is liturgical and ecclesial would cease.

The role of deacons in the Pauline liturgy is still virtually non-existent, and the traditionalists are not willing to change anything in their liturgy for the sake of not deepening the conflicts.

To be honest, I have never met anybody in the Latin Church who thinks that there's something wrong with clothing priests as deacons or subdeacons. I also don't think that the bishops and cardinals have problem with that, or even that they realize the problem. They probably don't think it's an important matter, and indeed, when deaconate and subdeaconate is transitional, it can't be something important.

The calls to extend the role of permanent deacons usually come from circles far more modernist than the average, so they're generally ignored. The Pope doesn't seem to be interested in further development of the Pauline Liturgy in this direction, at least in the current, very bad situation. I think there will be no change in the foreseeable future.

When I have attended Roman Mass, I have always wondered about the role of the deacon--and I sometimes think the deacons themselves must wonder. When we have Latin diaconal candidates visit us for Liturgy, they are awestruck by the extent and importance of the deacon's role--not the least that he gets to tell the priest what to do from time to time.

The Deacon doesn't "tell" the priest what to do, he prompts the priest. In the days of illiterate priests, this was part of keeping the old, possibly blind, priest on the same track, since the prompts are short, but trigger the rote memory.

It's surprisingly good ed-psych/neuro-psych theory implemented in practice.