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

No, but one can point out that the EF as written is counter to current catholic doctrine. (HH has said so, WRT the prayer for the jews during the Triduum.)

The Current praxis of it, likewise, can be shown to violate several instructions on the reform of the mass, including ones predating the pauline mass, as well as the council instructions from VII on the lack of participation by the laity and the need for more readings.

In short, the EF missal needs adjstment in praxis to meet requirements of the VII council, and while not heretical, it's clearly, from a post-conciliar point of view, suboptimal.

One can, however, infer and deduce from the online communities that those advocating strongest for it are, in fact, considering the 1917 CIC the default, and that it's commonly used in the traditionalist circles to claim the modern church is in grave error, despite the fact that it has been explicitly abrogated in full. One can also infer and deduce from these communities that they do reject the 1983 CIC and 1984 CCEO; many of them explicitly and openly reject them.

Further, the online presence, while not a majority of those attending, is in fact very active in promoting the EF to youth, and is using erroneous statements to do so.

The EF itself is what it is; the traditionalist movement, however, is a different thing from it.

The V II council (including the then pope and the men who would be the following 3 popes) said the '62 mass had issues. Therefore, it has issues, whether YOU want to admit it or not. Not correcting those issues is, in the long run, denial of the V II council.

So, at some point, the 62 missal MUST be either abrogated & replaced, or the V II council declared void or in error. The proper replacement, however, should be one with the minimum adjustment to the missal; the Pauline missal has, in a great many ways, become a separate recension with differing sacramental theology behind it.

The needed changes are few to meet the council's instructions: adding of an old testament reading, increasing the amount of the bible read, permitting use of the vernacular, and requiring the dialogue form. HH Benedict has stated also that the Triduum's prayer for the jews needs revision as well.

The adjustment of the readings is easiest done by simply adopting the current lectionary pattern. The prayer for the jews could be dropped or reworded by the pope. The dialogue form, and the priest being required to say the shared prayers with the people is a rubrical change requiring a handful of entries. The use of the vernacular was easily accomplished by 1965... when ordered in 1964!

When a group rejects the guidance of their bishops, one MUST question their reasons, J. One MUST examine to see why; the visible evidence of why points squarely to rejection of the hierarchy's authority, rejection of the V II council, rejection of the actions of HH JP II, and rejection of the validity of the vernacular.

Actually, the Council called to retain Latin in Latin rites, with the possibility of extending the usage of vernacular in some areas.

But the Pauline lectionary is a complete disaster which has nothing to do with tradition (any "t"), and its failure has been repeatedly admitted even by its authors (!) and senior Vatican officials that can hardly be called traditionalists (like Cardinal Arinze). Its purpose was to include as much of the Scripture as possible, so sometimes the readings don't make any sense together.

Please can the focus be theological, and remain on the orginal question of priests vesting as deacons and serving as such? I am well aware that there is a connection with the EF of the Latin rite and its practice in this matter, however, it seems that the discussion has taken a detour and is no longer focusing on the original topic .

May I ask that those who want to focus on the EF and the OF of the Latin rite and pertinent questions open another post?
With thanks.

I will ask the question from a different perspective: when a priest vests as a deacon and serves the liturgy vested as such does he
a) cease to be a priest?
b) remain a priest and act as a deacon?
c) appear to be a deacon but really is a priest?

When a priest does not act as either a celebrant or a concelebrant but stands in the nave of the church in his rason does he act as
a) a priest?
b) a deacon ?
c) a layman?

When a pirest stands in the nave of the church dressed in a suit and tie is he
a) a layman?
b) a deacon?
c) a priest?

When a man is ordained a deacon is he
a) a cleric and no longer a layman?
b) a cleric but still remains a layman?

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed. revised and edited by F.W. Danker, based on W. Bauer, (University of Chicago Press), 2000, defines diakonos as
1) one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction; agent, intermediary, courier
2) one who gets something done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone

To be a deacon is to be a deacon to and for someone. It is not possible to be an intermediary, an agent, a courier, an assistant to someone, etc. if there is no someone. In the Church to act as deacon is to be deacon to a bishop and by extension to a presbyter who celebrates the liturgy when the bishop is not present or in place of the bishop. Only bishops ordain deacons and have deacons. Priests do not ordain deacons or have deacons. When a man is ordained a priest he no longer interacts with his bishop as a deacon but now becomes a concelebrant with his bishop and fellow presbyters. As a sign of this new relationship his orarion is no longer worn on the left shoulder but is now placed by his bishop as a yoke around his neck. He wears it (the orarion which has become an epitrachileion)as an outward sign of his place in the college of presbyters. He cannot remove himself from this college even if at some point he no longer actively functions in it. This college does not exist for the individual priest but for the good of the whole Church. The functions of this college liturgical and non-liturgical which is always presided over by a bishop exist for the salvation of souls.

The man who is a priest but is vested as a deacon - just who is he deacon to
a) his bishop with whom he is a concelebrant whether he is actively concelebrating or not?
b) his fellow priests?

Liturgy manifests the Church. It should speak of the Church in a real and coherent manner. Coherently, once a man becomes a priest, he is a priest 24-7. He cannot take this off and put it on at will regardless of what he is wearing. The sacramental character is real and is also coherent. Sacramental character means that the sacrament cannot be repeated and it is indelible. Thus, the priest does not loose the character of the diaconate, anymore than he looses the character of baptism and chrismation. But once ordained to the presbyterate, he should always appear in the ecclesia for what he really is, namely a priest. He should not appear as a layman or a deacon, regardless of what he is doing liturgically or non-liturgically.

Baptism and chrismation do not exist as stepping stones to the diaconate. The diaconate does not exist as a stepping stone to the presbyterate. The presbyterate does exist as a stepping stone to the episcopate. Each order in the Church has its own and proper means of acting in the Church. Each order acts in communion with the other orders. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

When liturgy is served in its fullness, each order is present and takes its proper place. This full liturgy with the full and active participation of all its orders is normative liturgy, and anything else is in someway a reduction of a visible manifestation of what the Church really and coherently is. None of this is to make liturgy more solemn or celebratory. All of the orders exist in the Church because in a communion they are all necessary for the very life and existance of the Church. When one order in the Church takes the place of another order, it diminishes the very Church. The Church is always a communion of persons hierarchically ordered, and this is because the Church images the most holy and lifegiving Trinity - a communion of persons hierarchically ordered. The Church exists for the purpose of communion in the Trinity. The Father who is the "arche" does not take the places of the Son and the Holy Spirit for each person is unique, irreplaceable and unrepeatable. So in the Church each person is unique, irreplaceable and unrepeatable; and so is each order in the Church, and if it were not so, the orders would not be essential but only transitional and transitory.

Can the priest do what the deacon does? Yes, but he does it as a priest and not as a deacon and thus should vest as a priest. Once the bishop has placed the orarion around the neck of the newly ordained priest and he (the bishop) cries out axios and the clergy cry out axios and the laity cry out axios, that priest has no business turning the epitrachileion back into an orarion.

The liturgical tradition tells us that the orarion is like the angel's wing; precisely for the deacon is the assistant, the courier, the messanger, the one who gets something done on behalf of someone else (namely, the celebrant), he acts as the intermediary between the nave the sanctuary between heaven and earth. In the Old Rite the deacon when placing the orarion on his left should says: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth..." When the orarion becomes the epitrachileion of the priest, the priest when vesting now says: "Blessed be God who pours out his grace upon is priests as myrrh upon the head..."

Does a layman forfeit the character of baptism and chrismation when ordained to the diaconate? Certainly not but the character is subsumed into the diaconate. So when a deacon is ordained into the presbyterate, the character of the diaconate is subsumed into the presbyterate.

Since deacons are necessary for the fullness of the liturgy and if there are not a sufficient number of deacons, the solution is simple - ordain more.

Technically speaking, Father Deacon, a priest, a deacon, and even a bishop, always remains part of the Laos tou Theou, and thus is always a layman in addition to the office of his ministry.

Yes, Stuart - that is why the term subsumed is used. I would prefer not to use "in addition". The bishop, the presbyter, the deacon, the baptized and chrismated are each in their own order and all of these orders are the laos tou theou. It is by baptism and chrismation that a person becomes part of the visible laos tou theou. Holy Orders does not separate one from this reality but puts the ordained depending on the degree into a new relationship with all the other members of the ecclesia.

We agree, I believe. When we are Chrismated, we receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and when a man is ordained, he does not receive another gift, or a different gift, but the same gift with enhanced intensity, to strengthen him in his ministry, for he is now responsible not only for the state of his own salvation, but for all those entrusted to his pastoral care. The Rite of Ordination conveys the fortitude needed to bear the burden.

To often, though--and even by members of the clergy themselves--it is believed that ordination removes a man from the Laos and sets him aside. At its worst, this type of clericalism denigrates the fundamental importance of baptism and the people's share in the priesthood of Christ, as when a man who has received ordination is said to have "joined the Church". What was he before he was ordained, one wonders.

On the other hand, the language of subsumption tends to play into the hands of those who view ministry as a progression up the cursus honorum, rather than valuing each ministry for what it is, and for its mystagogical significance. Thus, some would say ordination to the presbyterate subsumes the order of the diaconate, and ordination to the episcopate subsumes ordination to the presbyterate. If one thinks like that, then there is no problem with priests or even bishops dressing like deacons and assisting in the liturgy.

But that would deny the integrity of each order. To make a theological analogy in the strict sense of the word, this view of orders is modalist.

Thank you Stuart. Your comments are quite helpful and lead to clarification rather than muddling confusion.

With all due respect, this thread is now 6 months old and about 150 posts in length, by a rough calculation. Matters of decidely more import are and have been dispensed with in a fraction of this thread's life.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to perceive that there is a point to the thread's continuance. The frequent meanderings from the question posed at the outset lead one to a strong suspicion that the topic is exhausted. The questions posed are long since answered - several times over and in several different iterations, some supportive of Protodeacon David's stance - some not.

If there is, at this point, any justification to the thread's ongoing life, it needs to be pointed out. As is, it has long-since begun to exhibit an obsessive air, with the question restated and restated, again and again, in search of someone who will offer whatever answer has been predetermined as 'correct'.

Many years,

Neil

Stuart:

Catholic Canon Law uses "Faithful" as the inclusive term, not "laity." Ordination does indeed remove a member of the faithful from the laity, who are those who are not ordained.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PT.HTM

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P8Z.HTM
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PB3.HTM

Neil:
Just pointing out an error in Stuart's argument.

But I don't see that uselessness you are seeing; I see subtle shifts in several people's positions over the course of the thread.

A young presbyter serving as a deacon - Poland (UGCC), June 2014:

http://cerkiew.net.pl/Wiadomosci/wiadomoscjedna.php?polaczenie=wiad_1404080768&cerkiew=cerkiew

Sad but true. Uniatism continues.