Are there any theological reasons(not canonical or rubrical, as these are well known)why a priest/bishop should not vest as a deacon and serve as such? Does not the priest have the "character" of the diaconate given that he was ordained to the diaconate? Is the priest not also a deacon?

It is an article of Faith that the Church's threefold hierarchy (bishops, priests, and deacons) is of divine institution. That being the case, whatever has a destructive effect on the three-fold hierarchy is assuredly theologically objectionable.

This includes priests dressing up (or down?) to look like deacons, and priests dressing up to look like bishops.

The impression thus given that genuine deacons are superfluous (which has often been said to me by people who truly should know better) and that bishops are much more important as administrators than anything else (Cardinal Spellman of New York was accustomed to celebrate Mass once a year!) is throughly destructive of the diaconate, and even of the episcopate.

Fr. Serge

To add to what Fr Serge has so aptly said, I think that the practice of presbyters vesting and serving as deacons is also wrong because it is not honest. I was indeed a deacon for three months of my life, but am now a priest. We do not practice deception in the Liturgy of the Church. I believe this is only a Latin practice anyway. No Orthodox that I am aware of do this.

Fr David Straut

I have seen two young priests serve as servers/deacons next to a more senior priest, but they were wearing collars and there was no deacon around (there were two other servers). I presumed they were newly ordained and not assigned a parish yet.

Would it be theologically objectionable for a priest to serve as a deacon in that circumstance?

Terry

So Fr Serge, this would include the Award system of some of the Eastern Churches where priests are awarded vestments and privileges of the Episcopate: the epignation, the miter, serving with open Royal Doors, etc.?

Fr David

TERRY:

Were they vested as such? Seems to me that in Byzantine practice, they would be concelebrating. That said, they might have assumed some diaconal functions, such as intoning the litanies--a sharing of the parts of the Liturgy.

BOB

Bob,

To me at the time they were obviously friars, now that I think about it more, because they wore collars. They did not have the same vestments as the officiating priest. As I remember, their vestments were plain white and the other priest's was green. Much like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5Olg-qZmOFw/Ru2BYHL1PoI/AAAAAAAAAT8/V_HHIfI341w/s1600/lowmass.jpg

I don't know how they were vested according to the custom of their rite because it was the first Dominican mass I attended.

Terry

The use by priests of deacon vestments is forbidden also in the Latin rite. See for example the Caeremoniale Episcoporum par. 22. A priest can act as a deacon, but he shall wear the priestly vestments.

An exception is possible only if in a college of canonics (for a collegiate church) a rank of "deacon canonics" is expressly foreseen, as it is the case of the deacon cardinals.

Terry:

The Roman Rite, from about 1500 until the 1974 missal, forbade concelebration unless the bishop was the primary celebrant, and then only when the "pontifical mass" was used.

Since concelebration as a priest was forbidden, and priests were required to assist in the holy sacrifice of the mass daily, they did so vested as deacon and subdeacon. (between about 800AD and Vatican II, the Roman Church considered Subdeacon a Major Order.)

It would not be uncommon to see a parish where who was vested as deacon rotated.

Since Vatican II, however, the Roman Church has rejected the "use of lesser held orders" as normative and abolished the subdeaconate; this, more than anything, is why the Pauline Missal was adopted; the "down-vesting" as a deacon or subdeacon was forbidden, and so a Missa Solemnis was impossible to do.

While a Roman priest may still serve as deacon under the pauline mass, he vests as a priest when so doing, and still joins in the concelebrant's parts. But, also, under the GIRM of the Pauline Missal, it is expressly forbidden for a higher order to take over the duties of a lesser order when a member of that lesser order is present. Even a trained lay reader is preferred over a cleric for reading the lections.

Now, the thing is, the Roman church also allows priests to participate "in choir"... that is, they do not vest*, do not join in all the concelebratory prayers, and properly, sit at the front of the nave, rather than being in the sanctuary, except when receiving communion.

Further, a cleric serving in a non-clerical role (Master of ceremonies, sponsor of a candidate or catechumen, godparent, MHC**) also is to be non-vested*.

*they wear non-liturgical vesture of cassock/soutaine and surplice; for choir vestry deacons often use alb and stole sans dalmatic, especially where use of the cassock has been suppressed for permanent deacons, and priests sometimes do so. For bishops, cassock, zuchetto, and rochet. All clerics should also have their biretta when choir vested.
** if not attending the mass in choir nor as concelebrant

Also, not all friars are clerics; it is possible that they were friars simple who were functioning as altar servers. The photo you linked to would appear to be Dominican friars... the mantle worn over the surplice, and that over the cassock and/or habit is a Dominicanism.

It should be noted that, in the east, concelebration was, is, and should remain normative, and functioning in their lesser ordinations is done as an economia for bishops, priests, deacons, and even subdeacons and other minor clerics. This was dictated by the councils.

Hi,

In the Latin Church, when there is a large number of priests concelebrating, it is customary that only one or two concelebrants are fully vested with whatever liturgical garments are appropriate for their order (episcopal or presbyterial).

The rest of the concelebrating priests may be vested in alb and stole. However, the stole needs to go around the neck and both sides down the chest, as priest wear the stole.

I have NEVER seen a priest wearing the stole from the left shoulder across to the right hip, as deacons do.

All priests can perform the liturgical ministry of the deacon: They can read the gospel, lead the prayers of the faithful, take care of the altar by themselves and distribute communion under any species or both.

However, they do so vested as priests, not as deacons.

Shalom,
Memo

Well, in the Latin rite before Paul VI, the not-celebrating priests could vest as deacons/subdeacons only and in the strict number foreseen the by the kind of Mass. All the other not con-celebrating priests and bishops attended with alb and cope but without stole

In the Latin Church, priests serve (and vest) as deacons all the time. That paragraph from Caeremoniale Episcoporum is interesting.

Alexis

Aramis,

What you mention here is interesting, but I'm not sure that's the principal reason why priests served as deacons in the Roman Rite.

For one thing, it was my understanding that the rubrics for a high mass required that there be both a deacon and a sub-deacon serving with the priest. Since none of these were available outside of seminaries (and then only for part of the year), someone had to fill that role. (Also, I don't think this fulfilled the priest's obigation to celebrate mass, although this could be done in private.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

antv:
Be so kind to provide a source for the following:
An exception is possible only if in a college of canonics (for a collegiate church) a rank of "deacon canonics" is expressly foreseen, as it is the case of the deacon cardinals.
The actual legislation and where it can be obtain would be most helpful.
With thanks.

Absolutely not.

Why would this be needed anyway?

A priest can do everything and more vested as a priest...

TERRY:

What you seem to be looking at is a Mass in the Extraordinary form. That's a whole different ball game. Prior to the liturgical reform, our assistant pastor once served the second Mass of Christmas for our pastor immediately after Midnight Mass--everyone else went home and the regular servers were beat.

BOB

It's a chicken and Egg situation, Fr. Deacon.

The mandate for saying mass resulted in three responses:
more masses scheduled, more altars in use (side altars, even simultaneously), and "hidden concelebration" by down-vesting.

That the instructions of the missals made deacons who were not priests lower priority to serve in the role to which they were ordained further contributes to the decline, which reinforces the down-vesting trend, and further, to the near abolition of the permanent deaconate and permanent subdeaconate within the Roman Church. Really, the change begins in the 1200's... by Trent it was institutionalized.

It's well documented. ISTR it's even mentioned in the Deacon Directory....

aramis:
Can you provide exact sources for your comments about instructins of the missals. It would be appreciated very much.
"That the instructions of the missals made deacons who were not priests lower priority to serve in the role to which they were ordained further contributes to the decline, which reinforces the down-vesting trend, and further, to the near abolition of the permanent deaconate and permanent subdeaconate within the Roman Church. Really, the change begins in the 1200's... by Trent it was institutionalized.

It's well documented. ISTR it's even mentioned in the Deacon Directory...."

The rubrics of the 1962 Missale Romanum does not mention priests serving as deacons. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum [not the current one] mentions "canon deacons" and "canon subdeacons" who fuctions with the bishop. Originally they were in the orders of deacon and subdeacon but later these canons were all priests although the titles remainded as an anachorism.

Your help would be appreciated.

Fr Protodeacon David:
You'll be needing the instructions from the 1200's to 1400's; they are referenced in several secondary and tertiary sources I've read, but do not have. (Borrowed a book at a time from various theologians I have known....) The 1962 missal's GIRM is notably lacking instructions that had become customary. (My dad, a roman permanent Deacon, is glad that the pauline missal is so explicit in its GIRM.)

The current roman pontifical makes reference to vesting of cardinal deacons as deacons when attending upon the pope; the current GIRM explicitly requires priest vests as priests. (current GIRM c 114) Likewise the deacon if present excercises his own ministry (c 171); canon 208 enables the concelebrants to perform the deacon's duties if the deacon is not present. C 209 requires concelebrants vest as if primary celebrants, unless there is a sufficiently good reason, giving example of large numbers of concelebrants.

The Vatican II post-conciliar documents also speak to the issue obliquely.

Thanks aramis,

If you could be more specific about the instructions from 1200's to 1400's i.e. the actual texts, this would be of great help.

The only liturgical-canonical reference that I have been able to find is in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, The first book, Chapters VIII, IX, and X which make reference to the assistant deacons, and the deacon and subdeacon of the Mass. They are all drawn upon from the canons of the cathedral church. Originally, the canons were in the orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest but the titles atrophied and eventually all the canons were in the order of the presbyterate, however, the various titles remained.

Also, what is the reference in the current Roman Pontifical to cardinal deacons vesting in the dalmatic when attending upon the pope [here, they function liturgically somewhat like assistant deacons]? I know it is done in practice but where is the rubrical reference?

With thanks for your help.

The following are the only current texts I know of on this topic. If anyone could assist with more both from the past and those that are current, I would greatly appreciate the time and effort.

“… A reader or acolyte, even one not formally instituted, will perform the subdeacon’s functions. In the celebration of Mass all ministers should do all and only those parts that belong to them on the basis of the order they have received. The ordained ministers at mass are therefore to take part either by concelebrating if they are priests or by exercising their proper ministries if they are deacons…It is altogether out of place for a priest vested as a deacon to exercise the deacon’s function…”
SC Divine Worship, Presentation Cum, die 1 Ianuarii of the changes introduced into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 23 Dec. 1972; Notitiae 9 (1973) 34-38
[Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, 206]

“Therefore liturgical services involve the whole Body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they also concern the individual members of the Church in different ways according to their different orders, offices, and actual participation.” Sacrosanctum Concilium 26.

“In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.” SC 28

“The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred orders…” SC 32

“All in the assembly gathered for Mass have an individual right and duty to contribute their participation in ways differing according to the diversity of their order and liturgical function. Thus in carrying out this function, all, whether ministers or lay persons, should do all and only those parts that belong to them, so that the very arrangement of the celebration itself makes the Church stand out as being formed in a structure of different orders and ministries.” GIRM 58 (1975)

“The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, which is the “Sacrament of unity,” that is, a holy people gathered together and ordered under the Bishop. For this reason, the Eucharistic celebration belongs to the whole Body of the Church. Such a celebration manifests this same Body and affects it. As to the individual members of the Body, the Eucharistic celebration touches them in different ways, according to the rank, office, and degree of participation in the Eucharist. (SC 26) In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own,” demonstrates its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering. (SC 14) Therefore, all, whether ordained ministers or Christian faithful, by virtue of their function or their office, should do all and only those parts that belong to them. (SC 28) GIRM 91 (2000)

“Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; (SC 28) in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.” Caeremoniale Episcoporum 22

“A real and coherent practice of the Orders is sought

…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.” Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 75

Father David Straut asks whether my criticism of clergy vesting and so on as including "the Award system of some of the Eastern Churches where priests are awarded vestments and privileges of the Episcopate: the epignation, the miter, serving with open Royal Doors, etc.?"

I did not have that phenomenon in mind, however I can offer a few comments:

the epigonation - this vestment which is now used as a mark of special dignity in some Churches is not particularly episcopal - it is associated with the authority to hear Confessions and grant absolution (it is true, I must admit, that this authority was itself reserved to the bishop in the early Church - but then, every authority was reserved to the bishop in the early Church).

serving with open Royal Doors this practice has been spreading like wildfire in America. But the authentic tradition is to serve with open Royal Doors until just after the Great Entrance - one may observe this by attending an Old-Rite celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Nikon complained about this, and insisted that the Royal Doors should be closed until the Little Entrance, then closed again after the Gospel. The older practice has survived as an award.

As to the Mitre and so forth - this is a case of some episcopal insignia being used for awards. This practice almost certainly came into Orthodox use by osmosis from the Latins in Eastern Europe. The point was to have minor prelates for celebrations of special solemnity without increasing the number of actual bishops (because such worthies as the Tsar of Russia and the Emperor of Austria paid the salaries of the hierarchy, meaning that real bishops were expensive!). With these minor prelates to adorn patronal feasts and the like, it was possible to have - as they did - huge dioceses, where the bishop could not and did not visit all the parishes regularly. Metropolitan Andrew is praised for having visited at least once every parish in the Archdiocese of L'viv - meaning about 1,200 parishes with poor transportation, difficult access, and interruptions by such distractions as World War I and the revolutions which followed. As he got older, he was increasingly paralyzed.

Any number of other dioceses had similar situations. But creating ersatz "bishops" is not a serious solution, nor is the creation of auxiliary bishops who may look impressive but do not have the authority whose symbols they are wearing.

When I was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite, the bishop presented me with a pair of dikerotrikera. I've never had the nerve to use them (I keep them in the house so that the bishop, when he comes to us, does not have to bring his own).

Hope that clarifies my view of the matter to some extent.

Fr Serge

Interesting information!

http://www.salvemaliturgia.com/2009/12/ordenacao-sacerdotal-do-pe-adriano-na.html

The link above will show photos of priests serving as deacons. Note that in one of the photos the priests are also wearing the priestly stole over the dalmatic while they lay hands on candidates at an ordination to the presbyterate. Very interesting?

Looks both confused and confusing!

Fr. Serge

Fr. Protodeacon,

I don't find it to be interesting, so much as distressing. What it says to me is that in embracing the TLM, certain groups within the RCC are also embracing some of the abuses that had been abolished with Vat. II.

I wasn't able to see the pictures, but what you describe is clearly a case of the disregard for the integrity of the deacon's role that is so easy to fall into when a priest functioning as a deacon has become the norm rather than the exception. When it's time for all priests present to lay hands on the candidate, just throw a stole over his dalmatic to show that he really is a priest, then afterwards he can take it off and go back to functioning as a deacon.

(My take on Pope Benedict's call for a "reform of the reform" was that the RCC needed to lose the idea that the "new" concept of the Mass was completely irreconcilable with the old. This would involve priests and people being familiar with both forms of the Mass, seeing where they are similar and developing an abhorrence for extreme divergences in either direction.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Hmmm. Saw the televised Mass for Archbishop Sheen (from Saint Patrick's Cathedral, New York) yesterday. The Cathedral was well filled, with oodles of clergy. The Gospel was read by a presbyter, vested as such, but at the end, when the Archbishop of New York was thanking all and sundry, he thanked the deacons who were present! So how come no deacon was invited to serve?

Fr. Serge

No clue as to why, since the GIRM is explicit that the ONLY time a presbyter is to read the Gospel is when no deacon is present.

Further thoughts on this matter:

Do not the liturgical norms which are drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the liturgy apply to all the rites of the Catholic Church? Given that Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dec. 4, 1963 was written in the context of the Missale Romanum of 1962 do not these norms apply to what is now termed the extra ordinary form of the Roman Rite? They read as follows:

§ 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 bishop.” [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 effects 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.

§ 28. 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.

These norms are abundantly clear and to the point: one functions in the order to which one currently belongs. While a presbyter can do what a deacon does in regards to the liturgical functions, a man once ordained to the presbyterate ceases to be in the order of the diaconate. Once a layman is ordained to the diaconate [as is the present case of entry in the Latin Church into the clerical state] he is no longer in the order of the laity [the baptized and chrismated] but is now in the order of the diaconate. The character received in baptism and chrismation remains which essentially means he is not to be baptized or chrismated again. So for the presbyter; the character of the diaconate remains, meaning he is not to be ordained a deacon again. One cannot forfeit these mysteries once they have been received. But certainly, one would not argue that the clergy are in the order of the laity, so one should not argue that presbyters or bishops are in the order of the diaconate. Ministerial orders are not simply about functions. They are also about ecclesial relationships. Quite plainly, the deacon’s relationship with the bishop is not the same as the presbyter’s relationship with the bishop. The Church is a corporate body hierarchically structured. When priests act in an omnivorous manner vested as deacons [and as subdeacons] assuming the liturgical functions of other orders, there is an implicit message that these other orders serve no purpose in the Church except as a grade to the presbyterate. This practice is not only a flagrant liturgical abuse; no matter how “traditional” is might seem but also erodes the hierarchical and corporate nature of the Church. This is simply a deformation of what the Church really is. It is to present the Body of Christ in a false manner. One cannot put on and off an order by putting on and off vestments. A priest is quite clearly a priest all of the time. His relationship to his bishop, to his fellow presbyters, to the deacons and the laity is always as priest: it is never as deacon regardless of what he is wearing or what he is doing. A real and coherent practice of orders is not an option!

Father Protodeacon,

Yes, they apply to the Traditional Sacraments of the Latin Rite as well.

But, as Stuart is so apt to point out, often directives do not translate into reality.

Alexis

One should also point out, for clarity: the 62 GIRM is used with the OF, and down-vesting is accepted practice for the 62 missal, which predates Sacrosanctum Concilium; the OF may only use the 62 rubrics and missal; not the changes brought by Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1963.

The Dominican Rite also down-vests priests serving in the roles of deacon and subdeacon; if a deacon is available, however, they serve as deacon; if two deacons, deacon and subdeacon. Additional priests in choir. For they are affected by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is VERY relevant to the pauline mass, however, and the source of the prohibitions in the current GIRM.

Thank you, Fr. Protodeacon!

My sentiments exactly, except that I could not have expressed them as well.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of clerics in the RCC, the TLM represents a rejection of SC--lock, stock and barrel. Some hate the TLM for that reason, while others hate SC for it. Either way, they are in error.

The real problem, I think, is that they didn't understand SC at the time it was promulgated, and they still don't--which means they certainly have no appreciation for the issues you raised here. Thanks again for sharing them.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It's funny - I understand the arguments against clerics serving as clerics of lower-ranked orders to which they've already been ordained, but I personally just don't see it as a big deal.

I guess because the message it sends to me is not that "these lower orders are just a step on the way to priesthood" - but just simply that becoming a priest doesn't strip one of his diaconal ordination, and so therefore I don't really see the big deal in a priest acting as a deacon or a deacon acting as a subdeacon in situations that call for it.

From my POV, I can more easily agree with the sentiment that, if a cleric of a lower order is present and able to do so, he should fill that role instead of the cleric of a higher order.

Alexis

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium was written with the 1962 Missale Romanum in mind not the "Pauline Mass" as there was no "Pauline Mass" at the time.
2. The liturgical norms of Sacrosanctum Concilium have a greater canonical weight than rubrics. Rubrics need to be based on and interpretered in light of these norms, not the other way around.
3. There are no rubrics in the Missale Romanum of 1962 that refer to priests serving either as deacons or subdeacons. Neither the text nor the rubrics make any mention of this practice.
4. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum (1752) in Book I,Chapters VIII, IX, and X give instructions for the assistant deacons, the deacon and subdeacon at the Solemn Pontifical Mass who are to be chosen from the cathedral canons. Originally, these canons were in the order of the diaconate and subdiaconate. Eventually, all of the canons were in the order of the presbyterate, although they retained the original "titles". This is an example of a liturgical and theological anomoly. The anomoly then becomes the norm due to a faulty theology of orders. Please note that these are not rubrics that endorse this practice. There are no rubrics that do such only dubious customs.
5. Fr. Serge has clearly pointed out the essential theological flaw to this practice: "It is an article of Faith that the Church's threefold hierarchy (bishops, priests, and deacons) is of divine institution. That being the case, whatever has a destructive effect on the three-fold hierarchy is assuredly theologically objectionable.

This includes priests dressing up (or down?) to look like deacons, and priests dressing up to look like bishops."

But dressing up and dressing down are just clearly not the same thing.

A priest has been ordained a deacon. He has received diaconal orders. I don't know the theology behind it for sure - but I'm pretty positive that being ordained a priest doesn't "strip" one of his diaconal orders.

A priest dressing up to look like a bishop would be totally different, as he hasn't been ordained in the episcopal order.

Now, I guess my question would be: what is the Byzantine theology behind holy orders? Does "moving up the ranks" strip one of his past orders? Does the order of priest actually replace the order of deacon, and bishop replace that of priest, or is it rather the addition of something new without expense to the old?

Alexis

One need only consult Orthodox best practice: priests simply never fulfill the roles of deacon or subdeacon!

The following from Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be read with great care:

§ 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 bishop.” [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 effects 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.

§ 28. 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.

1. The Church has within it a variety of orders and offices.
2. The Church is hierarchically structured.
3. A person belongs to only one order in the Church at any one time.
4. The liturgical services manifest the Church and have effects upon it.
5. Once one has entered from one order in the Church into another, a substantial change takes place.
6. Some of the Mysteries convey “character”: they cannot be repeated, e.g. baptism, chrismation, holy orders.
7. In Latin theology orders convey a “sacred power”. This is not lost when one moves from the diaconate to the presbyterate to the episcopate. A priest can do all that a deacon can do and more from this perspective, so a bishop can do all that a deacon can do and that a priest can do and more.
8. A baptized man once ordained does not forfeit his baptism; however, he is no longer in the order of the baptized but in that of the order to which he has been ordained.
9. A deacon once ordained a priest is no longer in the order of the diaconate but in the order of the presbyterate. If this is not true, then sections 26 and 28 from Sacrosanctum Concilium are not true. The priest does not forfeit the “character” of the diaconate nor does he forfeit the “sacred power” of the diaconate, yet he is not a deacon in the order of the diaconate but a presbyter in the order of the presbyterate.
10. All of the divinely instituted orders are necessary for the fullness of the Church.
11. The different orders are related to Christ and to one another in various ways.
12. The orders do not exist as absolutes unto themselves. A deacon must be a deacon because he is deacon to a bishop. A bishop is a bishop to a local Church.
13. Once a man is ordained a presbyter, he no longer is a deacon to his bishop but is a co-operator with his bishop in the priesthood. He is that all the time, regards of liturgical functions or other ministries assigned to him.
14. The orders in the Church need to be seen to be real and coherent.
15. The order of the diaconate does not exist to be a stepping stone to the order of the presbyterate any more than the presbyterate is a stepping stone to the episcopate.
16. When a priest vests as a deacon and serves as one, the question is obvious: Why is he not serving as a priest if he is a priest? A certainly doesn’t stop being a priest because he has put on diaconal vesture. This practice is neither real nor does it cohere. This priest stopped being a deacon to his bishop when he was ordained a priest. He no longer relates to his bishop as a deacon or to the other orders in the Church as such. He relates to them as a priest. When a bishop serves but in a non-pontifical manner, he still serves as a bishop. He doesn’t revert to serving as a priest and this is because he is a bishop and in the order of the episcopate. He relates to the other members of the episcopate in a way that no priest does and he relates to presbyters always as a bishop.
17. Liturgy should never be in the realm of the unreal. There should be nothing false about it, nothing that actually damages the very Body of Christ. The Paschal Mystery of Christ manifests itself in the Church in various orders in diverse ways. This is all done by the power of the Holy Spirit and each of these gifts is given for the building up of the Body of Christ. How can the hand say to the foot, I do not need you? Cf. 1 Cor. 12.

In the Church of Christ there is no place for falsehood, because Christ founded His Church on the Rock of Truth.

Fr. Serge

Alexis,

Protodeacon David has already answered your question, quoting Fr. Serge:


In other words, the question is not whether or not the character of the diaconate is lost when one is ordained to the presbyterate. Rather, the question is whether or not a blatant disregard for the integrity of the roles proper to each of the hierarchical orders is a good thing for the Church.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

See what the Prefect of the CDW is doing these days. It appears he does not believe that Sacrocanctum Concilium sections 26 and 28 apply.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/01/clergy-conference-in-rome-solemn_07.html

Maybe he should also be sent a copy of the Liturgical Instruction for the Application of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches so he can read section 75?

And this is a celebration for the Year of the Priest with a priest as a deacon and another priest as a subdeacon - a wonderful example of the "unreal and incoherent practice of orders".

This Mass is evidently an "Extraordinary Form" celebration, meaning the Missal in use immediately prior to Vatican II. I've noticed before that the people who do this are under the impression that the prohibition of priests playing deacon and subdeacon does not apply to them. So far as I know, there is no such exemption.

However, when Pope Benedict broadened the use of the old Missal EWTN had a couple of discussions of the matter, and one of the "issues" involved was the question (this is a question?) of whether one of the current crop of "permanent deacons" could serve at the Extraordinary Form of Mass. Reluctantly, the priests agreed that such a deacon theoretically could so serve.

Isn't that consoling and comforting?

Fr Serge

Alexis,

For comprehension purposes, allow me to take the liberty to compare this to a non-church situation:

Say there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court, or Secretary of State or some other prestigious office, a former Supreme Court, Secretary of State, etc could not properly step into the vacancy even though they were previously approved.

It's not that the person is not qualified, but because of respect for the office and proper rules, there is no retroactive qualification.

I hope this example may help.

1) There are actually very few celebrations of High Mass in the traditional form of the Roman Rite at the moment. Sadly.

2) When and where it is celebrated, usually the three sacred ministers would be three priests. On occasions, you will get two priests and a deacon. In which case, one of the priests acts as deacon and the deacon as subdeacon. Usually.

3) Outside of the very few traditional seminaries, you won't find a subdeacon, since we seem to have accidentally abolished the subdiaconate. Well, not technically, but they just stopped ordaining people to the subdiaconate and minor orders and skip straight to the diaconate. So you aren't going to find a subdeacon if you try, even if you try really hard. This has led to an awful lot of debate about instituted lectors and (other) laymen (insituted lectors aren't actually ordained lectors, at least as far as I can work it out) acting as subdeacons and none of that debate has been at all useful because noone has actually bothered to look at the origin of the role.

4) Even in the Pauline liturgy, it is not unusual at all to see a priest acting as deacon and, consequently, vested as such, unless there is actually a deacon there in which case the deacon will, obviously, fulfil that role. That said, since the reinstitution of a permanent diaconate in the West, noone quite knows what a deacon is actually for. Seriously.

5) Surely, however, it is obvious that a permanent deacon is, umm... permanently a deacon. And, therefore, is a deacon. And could serve as a deacon or, presumably, subdeacon, for High Mass.

6) Most of the legislation about the liturgy that comes out of Rome, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, is patently about the 'New Rite', the Pauline liturgy. As such, we tend to ignore it.

Basically, I think we would use deacons and subdeacons if we had them, but usually we don't. I mean, if we did, it would free up those two priests to hear confessions during Mass, right? ;-)

So, a quick question...

Given that we don't, usually, actually have deacons and those in lower orders in the West...

What should we do?

I mean, the choice is between 'acting down', which would break the symbolism if we still had it but we don't anyway, or should we use the simplified form of the Liturgy with only the priest-celebrant?

The last time I saw a Solemn High Mass in the preconciliar form there were priests downgraded to deacon and subdeacon. However, to my disgust, the lead acolyte was in fact a deacon! Go figure.

So what to do?

a) recruit candidates for the diaconate (reality is better than fakery).

b) obtain permission from the Bishop or Superior for a named layman to serve as Subdeacon (since I saw this done frequently in the nineteen-fifties, it is indeed pre-conciliar). Or have some Subdeacons ordained (a better solution, but it may puzzle the bishop).

During Vatican II Patriarch Maximos IV was to serve a Pontifical Liturgy, with a deacon from Grottaferratta, who seemed a bit uncomfortable. So a Greek-Catholic priest of my acquaintance offered to "serve as deacon" instead. The Patriarch looked the priest straight in the eye and answered "I don't, my son. Do you think you can fool God?"

Then of course there is the amazing aberration of Cardinals (who are always bishops these days) dressing in deacon's vestments but nevertheless wearing mitres when they accompany the Pope (and do nothing).

All this smacks of turning Holy Orders into a Sacriligious Game.

Fr. Serge

Precentrix

1. In the Novus Ordo, priests are clearly prohibited from vesting as deacons. This liturgical law can be found in various post Vatican II documents, some of which are mention above.

2. As Fr. Serge has pointed out if there are no deacons recruit them. And as Fr. Serge will attest I have served as a deacon since 1978 and this is because I was asked by my pastor who needed a deacon. [And many thanks to that pastor.]

3. There are well over 35,000 "permanent"deacons [I don't much like this term] in the Catholic Church and this number increases every year. There are usually a few thousand "transitional" deacons in any given year. Where is the shortage?

4. One should not do in the liturgy what one does not do outside of the liturgy. While priests can do the functions of deacons, they have the character of the diaconate but having been ordained presbyters are no longer in the order of the diconate but rather in the order of the presbyterate. I relate to my bishop as a deacon and to the presbyters as a deacon and to the order of the laity as a deacon. A priest relates to his bishop, to deacons and to the laity as a priest. This is not something that he puts on and takes off. This is something that he is. The liturgy is not a dress up show. The priest does not become a deacon for a liturgy and then reverts to being a priest once the liturgy is over.

5. A deacon once ordained a priest is no longer a deacon. To think that he is, is to fail to recognize that his relationship to Christ and to his bishop, fellow presbyters and the laity has not changed by the ordaination to the presbyterate.

6. Some will say that the priest does not forfeit the diaconate. If they mean he has the power and character of the diaconate, I would not disagree, yet he is no longer in the diaconal order. When a man is ordained, he is no longer in the order of the laity: certainly he does not forfeit his baptism and chrismation but he now functions as a cleric in the order he has received; lector, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, or bishop.

7. Liturgy must not only be real and truthful, it must be seen to be real and truthful. I am sure that Fr. Tim the priest who is serving as a deacon would be somewhat preturbed if he was listed in the diocesan directory as a deacon and not as a priest.

8. Fr. Serge's account of Patriarch Maximos IV says it all - God cannot be fooled . It makes no sense to speak of bishops or priests as deacons any more than to speak of them as laity.

9. The liturgy requires deacons. There are only a few services such as confession in the Byzantine rite that do not call for the active service of a deacon. When there is no deacon, the priest takes most of the deacon's functions but is vested as a priest and does not usually stand where the deacon stands. This is not really what the liturgy calls for but it is done when there is no deacon.

10. Sacrosanctum Concilium was not written with the Novus Ordo in mind but rather with what is now called the Extraordinary Form or a some call it the Traditional Latin Mass. In section 26 it says:" Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They manifest it, and have effects 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." It goes on to say in section 28: "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." These are general norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the liturgy. They apply to all the rites not just to the Latin Church as section 3 makes clear. If people choose to ignore them, it is simply an abuse. To refer to the practice as traditional reveals that the speaker does not understand what tradition in the Church is.

Father Protodeacon's comments are well-taken (and appreciated).

I would add that a deacon is not ordained for power but for service - a deacon has no "power" that a layman does not have (unless the layman is illiterate, which will not be cured by ordination!), but the deacon is by nature assigned to certain forms of service.

We can appreciate the Church of the East regulation which flatly does not permit the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the absence of a deacon!

Anyone who has ever known a good deacon is well aware that the deacon is a man of considerable "importance" and weight in the Christian community. Since many presbyters are threatened by the mere existence of anyone who is by nature responsible for a good deal of the life of the parish, we find that in practice many presbyters are opposed to the presence of genuine deacons.

Fr. Serge

It is good to always keep in mind that all the Mysteries of the Church manifest the Paschal Mystery of Christ. These Mysteries [Sacraments] do not exist as ends in themselves but rather to bring us to salvation in Christ. Salvation in Christ is not only remission from sin but fundamentally communion with the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The communion of the Holy Trinity is diversity in a hierarchical unity. It is a communion of agape which is the very nature of the Godhead. Celebrations of the Mysteries which exclude or diminish what has been Divinely established for our salvation do not lead to communion. Sacraments are not about the importance of the recipient outside of the reality of Christ and the Church. The Mysteries are a way of becoming conformed to Christ. We want to say with St. Paul, "It is not I who live but it is Christ who lives in me."

The power of the Mysteries is the power of the Cross. It is the power of ekenosis - the emptying of the self - the power of humility. The Holy Trinity reveals the Divine power in the incarnation but especially in the Cross.

A diakonos is someone who gets something done on behalf of a superior, an assistant, one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, an agent. Christ is the diakonos of the Father. His relationship to His Father is one of diakonia in the unfathomable Mystery of Agape. It is the deacon and is someway also those in minor orders who manifest sacramentally Christ as the diakonos. The presbyter shows forth Christ as eternal High Priest.

The presbyter who serves as deacon and not presbyter is quite simply confused and creates a sacramental confusion. The focus seems to be on function and relationship which is fundamental to communion [just think of the prayer of Christ to His Father in the Gospel of John before His passion] seems insignificant. It is relationship that brings us into communion.

The diaconate is not a stepping stone to the priesthood. Hierarchy in the Church is to be founded on the hierarchy in the Holy Trinity, not on a secular model where one ascends the rungs of a ladder.

The deacon as Fr. Serge has so clearly pointed out is without power. This is because he is diakonos, namely an intermediary or agent of the bishop and by extension of the priest. Note that in the Byzantine rite, the deacon does not serve if there is no bishop or priest. This is because the deacon has no one to be deacon to. A confusion in liturgical ministries creates a confusion in the Church and this confusion does not help to lead us to communion in the Holy Trinity.

I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the "minor orders" are developed from the diaconate.

But I am not mistaken about just how crazy the "presbyter-deacon" can become. With my own eyes and ears I have noticed such a cleric, vested as a deacon and attempting to serve as one, nevertheless suddenly "concelebrating" (as though a deacon did not concelebrate) by joining the other presbyters in sotto voce recitation of the Institution Narrative. If that's not confusion I don't know what would be!

Fr. Serge

Fathers,

Thank you.

The minor orders of deaconess, Lector, and Subdeacon go back as far as the apostolic constitutions. (A.C. Bk VIII §III)... Putting the orders in place not later than 500, and more likely in the mid 300's.

Singers are mentioned repeatedly in both Bk VIII and the canons themselves, but their ordination is not. They are mentioned with "other clergy" specifically inclusive phrasing:


(AC VIII §IV)



The emergence of taper-bearer, porter and acolyte are apparently of later origin; the roman excorcist is also of later innovation.

Even in the Apostolic Constitutions, there is a clear distinguishing of major/minor, tho not as such terms, in how the instructions are phrased, and that deacons presbyters and bishops are grouped together, whilst Deaconesses, Subdeacons, and Readers are not mentioned in those admonitions, tho' their forms of ordination are.

The key, however, seems that, as is now Roman Theology, the orders of Deacon, Presbyter, and Epsipcopos are of biblical origin.

For any court other than the US Supreme Court, this would not even be unusual. It's common for state courts. I've seen local District Court Judges sit in to hear calendars for Justice Court (although most won't). If memory serves, it was the prior Chief Justice of the USSC that presided at at least one trial every year to stay in touch; sitting US Court of Appeals judges can hear cases as District Court judges as well. Conversely, it's common in state courts for judges to sit *up* a level to get a full court for appeals.

While I'm at it, I believe that the Subdeacon ordained last Sunday at OLoW is a permanent Subdeacon; I'll have to ask Father this weekend.



"I'm not a subdeacon, but I play one on Sunday mornings."



Wow. Intriguing.

[/quote]
Anyone who has ever known a good deacon is well aware that the deacon is a man of considerable "importance" and weight in the Christian community. Since many presbyters are threatened by the mere existence of anyone who is by nature responsible for a good deal of the life of the parish, we find that in practice many presbyters are opposed to the presence of genuine deacons.
[/quote]

I know a deacon who, moving into his current parish, reported to the Pastor. He was greeted with, "We've never had deacons, don't need deacons, and never will!"

In discussing this with a religious brother, I learned that this deacophobia is common among small orders.


hawk

My dad (a Roman Deacon) was in a car accident some 20 years ago, driving to Sunday Mass at the Cathedral, where assigned; it was his parish of registry, as well, despite not living within the territorial bounds. Dad approached the territorial parish in the suburb where he lived, and got told "I'm not interested in having a deacon, I don't want or need an ordained altarboy."

Mom went and talked to the bishop about Dad needing to not be driving 20 miles each way.

The Bishop trumped the local priest. Some years later (about 8), said pastor was transferred from his now two deacon parish... to a parish without a deacon. First request from the priest to the bishop? A deacon.

So a good deacon can show even the die hard anti-permanent deacon priests a thing or two... by preaching the gospel... and once in a while, using words.

I agree, with some qualifications.



Actually, this was no accident. The sub-diaconate was abolished for the Latin Rite, along with the minor orders of Porter and Exorcist, while the minor orders of Lector and Acolyte were demoted to canonical institutions. (Obviously, this presents no problem for the celebration of the traditional High Mass, since these offices were not used for that function, anyway.)



It has? That's the first I've heard of it.



Good insight. In an age where more historical data is available then ever before, we continue to act as if any practice of more than 100 years standing is from time immemorial, and thus immune to such investigation.



What? I've never so much as heard of this being done! Not one time in 40 years! (Of course, given that concelebration is now permitted and priests serving as deacons has been specifically prohibited, one might expect that. )



You've got that right!



That's obvious! (Unfortunately, there were some good things in the reforms ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Hi,

I believe this discussion has flip-flopped between the issue of priests vesting as deacons (or sub-deacons) for the liturgy and who should perform the liturgical actions designated to deacons (or sub-deacons, in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite).

The first question has a simple answer: NO!

The priest should vest as priest and the deacon as deacon. Every baptized may wear an alb, if it seems pertinent, but I can hardly imagine why would this be required for anything (it is customary for Altar Servers, though).

Now, if there is no deacon present at Mass, who should perform the offices assigned to a deacon? There are very few of these, but the Gospel and the Litanies (like the Kyrie) should be done by the celebrant or another priest. The intentions for the prayer of the faithful can be read or sung by a lay person.

When Pope Paul VI abolished the minor orders and the major order of the Sub-Diaconate and also established in their place the instituted lay ministires of Lector and Acolyte, he said that all things that the Sub-Deacon could do, the Acolyte could also do. He also established that all things that instituted Lectors and Acolytes could do, lay people may also do if needed.

Needless to say, anything that a lay person can do, a priest might also do, even if he is a concelebrant or even the main celebrant.

Therefore, if the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite requires a Sub-Deacon, my first choice would be a properly trained lay person (I have no gender preference for this, but I understand some people would prefer to see a male in this role). Even better if we have an actual instituted Acolyte available (even if I am not the biggest fan of the Extraordinary form, I'll be an instituted Acolyte at least for the next year and a half or so, and I would volunteer, call me ).

My next choice would be a second Deacon (the first Deacon would be doing the Deacon "stuff").

The third choice would be a non-concelebrating Priest.

Lastly, a concelebrating Priest.

But again, a priest vests like a priest, a deacon vests like a deacon and a lay person vests like a lay person (optional alb included).

With all due respect for the CDW and its most eminent prefect, what the pictures from that celebration depict, is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

Very well put. "With all due respect...is,in my opinion, just wrong." Can you tell us why it is wrong theologically?
In Christ,
David, Protodn

Dear Fr. Protodeacon David,

I am not an expert in Pre-V2 vestments, but it seems to me that the two ministers next to the main celebrant are at the very least priests, and they appear to be vested as deacon and sub-deacon.

If my interpretation of the pictures is incorrect, then my remark about that being wrong would also be incorrect.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

Looking at many of the sites that feature the old mass, such as The New Liturgical Movement, at most all of the solemn masses in old form pictured, the deacon and sub-deacon are 99% of the time both priests. Granted, there are no Roman sub-deacons anymore, but it seems to me that there are plentiful amounts of deacons around who could be utilized as deacon and maybe even sub-deacon at these masses. WOuldn't that be better than a priest pretending to be a deacon?

My experience is that latin mass types generally view the permanent diaconate as an abuse of the post vatican II era.

There may well be a cohort of Trad Mass permanent diaconate supporters around the place who will come out and argue with me, but so far I haven't met a trad priest who thinks the diaconate is a good move.

Otoh, I have also not met any permanent deacons who think that the Tridentine liturgy is good.

I am guessing in most cases FSSP transitional deacons etc serve as subdeacons - that was the case with transitional deacons I know who served the extraordinary form.

Christ is Born!! Christ is in our midst!!

Permit me to make a comment that is a bit tangential. I've watched this "trad" thing from the time when the Mass of Pope John XXIII was the norm to this day. I have no problem with people who want to use this form. OTOH, I also believe that people who wish to remain with this form as the center of their living out of their pilgrimage should go the whole way. That is, they should be living the full life that was part and parcel of that time, with all the fasts and other parts of daily living that went with it. To quibble about the ritual itself seems to me to be spiritually dangerous because it make of the ritual a god: an end in itself, rather than the means to deepening communion with the One Who came here to establish communion with us. I've met many in my daily travels who go on and on about the Extraordinary form, but who don't make full use of the other parts of life at that time. And so often it seems to generate a superior attitude that somehow the rest of us are less Catholic because we fail to share the same enthusiam for the Extraordinary form.

That said, please forgive me for this tangent.

In Christ,

BOB

On a somewhat related note, I once had a friend rather excitedly tell me that in Russia, they allow subdeacons to walk through the Royal Doors when serving with a hierarch; he said he even had video to prove it.

I was skeptical, so I watched the video--it was of Patriarch Alexey serving Pascha in the early 1990's. Much to my friend's chagrin, I pointed out one key detail he hadn't noticed: the "subdeacons" were wearing cuffs. They were deacons who wore their oraria crossed for the entire Liturgy, and were responsible for the trikirion and dikirion. I don't think that counts as pretending to be a subdeacon, since deacons also wear their oraria crossed at times, and in Greek practice, the trikirion and dikirion are (ideally) handled by the deacons.

David

It should also be noted that Orders and Societies dedicated to the Extraordinary form due ordain their seminarians porter through subdeacon.

I know one who wouldn't mind assisting at a TLM. His bishop's even had him assist whilst wearing fiddlebacks...

Why is it called the "Traditional Latin Mass"? It only dates to the mid-16th century, and embodies usage that only developed in the late Middle Ages. The real Traditional Latin Mass is the Old Roman Rite. If you want to revive that, I'm all in favor. That's what Vatican II was supposed to do. In fact, that was what Trent was supposed to do. Somehow, nobody seems capable of getting it done.

Yes, having a deacon serve as sub-deacon is better than having a priest serve as sub-deacon.

As I said earlier, it is even better to have an acolyte or other lay person serve as sub-deacon.

In all cases, the ministers should vest according to the order they belong to, not according to their specific role for a particular liturgical celebration.

As for the views of the traditionalists about the permanent diaconate, it is irrelevant. The Church has allowed them to have the "Extraordinary Form" of the liturgy, but they are NOT allowed to declare as invalid the legitimate developments in Church life in the last 40 years.

ALL Catholics HAVE TO accept what the Council says and what the Magisterium has said since the Council (as far as it pertains to them, since a good number of these pronounciations are specific to the Latin church, but even then, Eastern Catholics have to agree that those are legitimate developments for the Latin church, even if they are not so for their own Particular church).

Now that the Extraordinary Form is openly allowed, it has been shown that it is this doctrinal and disciplinary issue, and NOT the Liturgy what's preventing the SSPX from being in full communion with the Catholic Church.

By extension, it should challenge the sense of full communion some other Traditionalists have, if they continue to subscribe to their Anti-V2 positions.

Just take the issue a few centuries back. What would you think of this: "We are not Arians, but we reject Nicea. We are truly faithful to the Catholic/Orthodox faith".

It doesn't really work.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

Because, per Roman Canons of several councils, anything over 200 years old is "traditional." Further, the Trent-triggered missal reform was pretty trivial for the Romans... and pretty drastic for many localized liturgies... and so the trent liturgy is the same traditions as the prior 250-300 years.

Let's face it, the Roman Missal has been pretty stable, but has a history of continuous top-down changes going back to the 800's. But until Trent, it wasn't the only missal, nor even the dominant missal, in the patriarchate of Rome. It was merely the Patriarchal liturgy. And almost every province had it's own revisions. Until Trent.


And aomst all those revisions were small... a new saint, adding or deleting a pre-entrance or post-recesionsional prayer.

Memo,

With reference to the 'Latin-rite traditionalists and permanent deacons' thingymawhatsit, I have no problem with it. A deacon is a deacon is a deacon. Even *I* can understand that. And, while I have on occasions seen priests 'dress down', I don't for that think that they have somehow temporarily forgotten that they are priests!

Stuart,

If the older forms of the Latin liturgies had been in constant use, there would be no problem. Trent did not cause drastic changes, but it effectively supressed local developments in the West in favour of a standard liturgy based on what was done in Rome. The reforms of Pope St. Gregory had, earlier, done the same thing for the chants. The legitimacy of some of those developments was acknowledged, especially with the continuance of local variants of significant antiquity (such as the Salisbury and York uses which only went out of use with the English Reformation and not as a result of liturgical reforms).

Unfortunately, many of the legitimate variants of the Roman use have fallen out of usage for significant lengths of time and there is a policy of not resurrecting them. Versions, however, which are currently celebrated include the most recent Dominican, Benedictine and Premonstratensian liturgies, together with the Braga and Ambrosian (unfortunately usually the reformed version). And, of course, the Charterhouse has barely changed its liturgy even in the so-called modern version. All of these variants have been up-dated since Trent and, indeed, in the twentieth century, but most revisions are merely insertions to the callendar of recently canonised saints etc.

Otsheylnik,

This is a significant observation. If I may be allowed to read between the lines here, I think it has to do with the fact that permanent deacons are (usually) married, which introduces a radical change to one of the most cherished institutions of the pre-Vat. II RCC, namely the all-celibate clergy.



This is also very interesting. It may be due to the liturgical training the deacons have received, which would have been exclusively in the context of the NO, but it also may be related to the fact that the TLM tends to go with a "pre-Vat. II" mentality, which would disallow their role in the Church as noted above.

One of my impressions regarding the whole TLM issue is that at the time of Vat. II, there was a widespread impression among the clergy that "something" was wrong with the Church, and that "something" came to be identified with the TLM--as if this change alone made everything right. This would help to explain why the clergy were so steadfastly opposed to the TLM, or anything associated with it (use of Latin, Gregorian Chant, etc.)

By the same token, trads tend to identify anything associated with Vat. II as the reason why "something" is wrong with the Church.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Let's not forget that most Latin clergy were married for more than 1100 years. Even a Pope or two, come to think of it.

"...most Latin clergy were married for more than 1100 years."

Now that is remarkable longevity!

Fr.Serge

Deacon Richard, you summarise my points better than I could!

I am not completely sure that it is correct to say that MOST Latin clergy were married in the first millenium. We don't have census data to indicate it, firstly, but secondly it is apparent that celibacy was exalted in the Roman church at least from the fourth century (look at Augustine for example).

There was certainly a significant party in the western church espousing both clerical continence in marriage and clerical celibacy at least as early as the fourth century. To keep this reply on topic, this is suggested as one of the reasons for the decline of the permanent diaconate in the west, and is discussed at length in the excellent book by Barnett, "The Diaconate: a full and equal order".

Let us also not forget that the Quinisext Council in the sixth century saw it necessary to restate earlier canons regarding clerical marriage, because it saw already the preference for unmarried clergy in the west. This was one of the reasons why this Council is considered "reprobate" in the west by Bede, among others. The fact that a sixth century Council saw fit to deal with this issue I think shows that enforced celibacy was a real issue in the west long before the great schism.

Not to mention fidelity!

"it is apparent that celibacy was exalted in the Roman church at least from the fourth century (look at Augustine for example)."

Celibacy has been exalted in the entire Church from Apostolic times.

Alexis

Why are Easterners so quick to push their view on clerical celibacy on the West? As all have admitted, it's been the required norm for a millennium, and was widely encouraged for the millennium preceding that. Until recent decades, there has never been a priest shortage in the West, and anyway I personally believe that is not tied to celibacy. Roman Catholic priests are extracted from that amount of the male Latin population that has a vocation to celibacy, and then further a vocation to the holy priesthood. I think God can manage that.

Alexis

So you say. The reality over history has been somewhat different.

Alexis,

I would have to agree with you that they are "extracted." Part of the definition of extraction is to use effort or force, which to me would mean there is some sort of resistance.

Long before my journey eastward (long in my lifespan of 25 years), I felt the call to priesthood and to married life, although it was not time yet. My spiritual director and other holy priests told me that basically I had to ignore my calling to the priesthood, because it would be impossible for me to ignore my calling to married life because it is a natural thing.

Peace,
Ed

I would most appreciated if we could keep to the topic: "Should priests vest as deacons and serve as such?"
In Christ,
David, Protodn

While I certainly do not want the east to push anything on the west, and vice versa, I do hope the west will assimilate a little eastern ethos for the good of her health. It will bring about an entire Church that breathes with both lungs, and may lead to a brighter and holier future for both great traditions. It might mean that both will have to give up, or at least, modify, certain long-held and cherished disciplines, such as mandatory clerical celibacy, but I have enough faith to believe that it might usher in an era in which celibacy is appreciated more for the gift that it is. In the meantime, I think it right and fitting for priests to dress and perform only in the roles for which they were ordained. While there is a theatrical element to liturgy, liturgy is not theatre where roles can be easily switched.

I understand, but I would hasten to point out that the whole phenomenon of priests vesting as deacons and serving as such comes directly out of the historical fact of the Latin Church essentially abolishing the diaconate, which in turn relates directly to the celibacy issue.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/02/permanent-deacons-in-liturgical-roles.html

The following link may be instructive.

It may be linked to celibacy, but it is more closely linked to the emergence of "private Mass" in the 12th-13th centuries, which essentially rendered the deacon redundant. If the priest could assume the roles of both the deacon and the people, then the only "essential" orders were the presbyterate and episcopate, meaning all lower orders were just intermediate steps on the cursus honorum, and not true orders in and of themselves.

Of course, one could make the case that the final imposition of clerical celibacy was influenced by this clericalization of the liturgy, but in fact the arguments put forth for mandatory celibacy at that time had little to do with the issue, or with the vocation of celibacy itself, and quite a lot to do with ritual purity issues--and with alienation of Church property, given the limitations of Germanic customary law that did not recognize "corporate ownership".

Not to be offensive, but doesn't having priests wear deacon's vestments sound like a theatrical performance? However it is not unheard of for bishops to vest as priests in some circumstances.

Each order has its own distinct vestments, and that's what each order should wear.

Are those the martyrs of the holy roman church we have in our calendar?

Shalom,
Memo

Bishops are not supposed to vest as priests, but as bishops. However, in imitation of their Roman counterparts, it was not uncommon to see some EC bishops photographed in phelonion, miter and sewn omophorion; some of them even wore Roman miters, and no omophorion. Properly, they should be wearing the saccos instead of the phelonion.

Some Ruthenian and Ukrainian photos from the early 20th century show the clergy looking VERY roman... except for the adding of an englopion and pectoral cross, one could mistake certain bishops of the Ukrainian church for Roman Bishops.

Most of the miters worn with phelonions, however, are worn by archimandrites and mitered archpriests, who are not bishops.

Note that proper episcopal latin attire for a bishop is alb, cincture, stole, dalmatic, chasuble, zuchetto and miter, plus, if possessed and in own see, the pallium; the dalmatic may be omitted, as may the miter. Roman priests don't have the dalmatic nor miter, and only certain ones may wear a zuchetto during the mass. (Priests are authorized a black zuchetto outside the mass; I don't know any who have one.) For the EF, add the maniple.

The Byantine eparch's is the sticharion, epitrachelion (stole - hidden by the saccos), zone (belt), Epigonaton (lozenge), epimanikia (cuffs), saccos, omophorion (over the saccos stole-like), englopion and pectoral cross, and the miter.
The priest may or may not have an epigonaton, englopion or miter, wears a phelonion instead of saccos, and does not have an omophorion; in some jurisdictions he might not have a pectoral cross, either.

"It may be linked to celibacy, but it is more closely linked to the emergence of "private Mass" in the 12th-13th centuries, which essentially rendered the deacon redundant. If the priest could assume the roles of both the deacon and the people, then the only "essential" orders were the presbyterate and episcopate, meaning all lower orders were just intermediate steps on the cursus honorum, and not true orders in and of themselves."

Stuart has pointed directly to the essential reason why the diaconate as a permanent order declined in the Latin Church. The orders considered "lower" than the presbyterate did not even need to be included in the liturgical texts. The only vestige of the "lower" orders that remained was the altar server, and in practice, at times this function was assumed by the presbyter. The corporate liturgical assembly, that is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, the Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit was reduced to a one man assembly. The regulation of this type of liturgical minimalism into a normative practice in the liturgical books of the Latin Church made everyone other than the priest unnecessary and has resulted in an ecclesiology that is deformed and deficient. It is the loss of a corporate consiousness of the Church, which denies the very nature of the Church and thus of the necessity of all the orders in the Church.

Sacrosanctum Concilium sought to correct this liturgical and ecclesial distortion: "Liturgical servies 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; cr. Letter 66,n.8,3.] Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They manifest it, and have effects 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." (section 26)

"It must be emphasized that rites which are meant to be celebrated in common, with the faithful present and actively participating, should as far as possible be celebrated in that way rather than by an individual and quasi-privately. This applies with special forace to the celebration of Mass (even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature) and to the administration of the sacraments." (section 27)

"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." (section 28)

Unfortuately, these norms are often not realized and this is especially true when presbyters vest and serve as deacons. Given that these norms were promulgated with the 1962 Missale Romanum in mind as there was no Novus Ordo at the time, I find it scandalous that since Summorum Pontificium Roman Catholic hierarchs including the current prefects of the CDW and the CDF by their actions give their tacit approval to ecclesial and liturgical distortions. If liturgical practice does not manifest a real and coherent practice of orders [i.e. all orders from catechumens to the episcopate] then it runs the risk of manifesting an inherent falsehood in regards to the Church.

Dear Aramis,

A Byzantine rite bishop may wear either the phelonion or the sakkos. The sakkos which was orginally the imperial dalmatic began to be worn first by the patriarch and later by metropolitans and bishops only following the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century. After the fall of Constantinople the patriarch also assumed the function of an ethnarch and the sakkos was adopted as vesture. The insignia of the episcopacy in the Byzantine rite is the omophorion, or the presbyterate the epitrachelion, and of the diaconate the orarion. When a Byzantine bishop wears the phelonion with the omophorion this is not a Latinization. The wearing of the phelonion is a more ancient practice.

While the sakkos is a dalmatic type vestment when worn by Byzantine bishops, it is not related to the liturgical dalmatic of the Latin Church but rather to the secular dalmatic of the emperor. It is from an earlier secular dalmatic [likely deriving from Dalmatia] that the Western liturgical dalmatic derives. It was also worn by the emperors in the West. Liturgically, it was first worn by the bishop of Rome who later bestowed it upon his deacons in Rome. Later he bestowed it upon other Latin bishops and archdeacons until it was eventually worn by all Roman rite deacons.

Some people try to propagate the mistaken notion that the Roman rite bishop wears both the chasuble and the dalmatic because he has the fullness of the priesthood. This is utter nonsense in regards to the vesture. [The bishop has the fullness of the priesthood because he has the fullness of the Apostolic mandate not because of his liturgical attire.] This is another example of how the curus honorum has led to both faulty practice and theology. The chasuble was worn by deacons, priests and bishops, and as stated above, the dalmatic was originally worn by the bishop of Rome and only later by his deacons.

Thanks to all who have made contributions by way of your comments.

Are there any other theological comments [not rubrical or canonical] on the phenomena of presbyters vesting and serving as deacons? More theological comments would be helpful.

I expect we will see more and more of this practice, especially as high ranking prelates of the Roman Curia celebrate Pontifical Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. This will be in spite of the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium which was written with the said missal in mind directly establishes a liturgical norm that applies to all rites [Eastern and Western] of the Catholic Church stating: "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." [Section 28]

The current Caeremoniale Episcoporum refers directly to section 28 of Sacrosanctum Concilium when it states: "Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; in the absence of deacons they may perfom some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments." Thus, it appears that the Church interprets section 28 of Sacrosanctum Concilium in a manner consistent with the very words of the text.

The practice of presbyters vesting and serving as deacons appears to erode the hierarchical and communal nature of the liturgy. The erosion of the liturgy is always an erosion of the real and true nature of the Church.

Again, if any have further theological comments, I am most interesting in reading them.

In Christ,
David, Protodn

Hello,

I just wanted to add that we had a good discussion last Saturday in our Diaconate Formation classes about the history of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.

One of the topics we touched, that I think is relevant to this discussion is that there was a process (and this was rather early in the history of the Church, it was well underway before the separation between East and West), to shift from viewing Clergy as those who had a specific, important task in the life of the community (and specifically the sacramental and liturgical life of the community), to the vision of Clergy as those who are in a certain state, different from those in the laity.

I do not think it is within the scope of this thread to elaborate in the pros and cons of this shift, but I believe that a good number of the deviations observed in recent practice with regards to Holy Orders stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be ordained.

This balancing act between "being" and "doing" is not restricted to those in Holy Orders. Every baptized christian faces it and, in fact, every human being faces it in religious and secular issues.

When people ask us "Who are you?" we have a tendecy to answer with something about what we do.

If we are to move forward in our understanding, as Church, of the meaning of Holy Orders, I propose both the ordained and the non-ordained to ask ourselves "Who am I (in the Body of Christ)?" and ask the Holy Spirit for His divine light in figuring out the answer.

Then, and only then, in the light of that answer, we can honestly ask "What do I do (in the Body of Christ)?"

Of course, as with most of the matters of our spiritual journey, this would be a life-long cycle of enlightment and purification and should never be an excuse to be pasive and negligent of our daily responsibilities proper of our state (or states, if you pardon the not-so-accurate expression, in the case of married clergy).

Shalom,
Memo

Memo,

Thank you for your comments, especially the part I have quoted above. This seems to confirm an opinion I offered earlier in this thread, namely that the issue of celibacy was directly related to the disdain of some traditionalist RC clergy for the "permanent" (i.e. non-celibate) diaconate.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Undoubtedly language was a major force behind that transformation. The clergy maintained the use of Latin, both liturgically and in official correspondence, legal documents, theological tracts and so forth. It might have been a very vulgar and debased Latin (my Ciceronian daughters laugh whenever they hear it), but it was indeed Latin. On the other hand, the people were already slouching into French, Italian and Spanish, to say nothing of English, German, Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Polish and Swedish. One reason the responses of the people in the Old Roman Rite are so terse and epigrammatic is the limited ability of the people, even in the sixth and seventh centuries, to understand and speak Latin.

Since the liturgy of the Western Church was now in a language incomprehensible to the common people, the liturgical role of the clergy became shrouded in mystery. A similar tendency towards clericalization in the East was mitigated by the continued use of a vernacular tongue. The Greek of the Liturgy might be antiquated and difficult for the common people, but it was still largely comprehensible (whether they understood the highfalutin' rhetorical excesses of the homilies is another matter, as Father Taft has pointed out). When the faith expanded into Slavic lands, liturgy and the Scriptures were translated into Slavonic, and a new written alphabet developed to support it. Because the people knew what the clergy were doing and saying, it was more difficult for the clergy to emerge as a distinct caste. It seems likely that that married priests also helped keep the clergy grounded (which was also the case in the West through the eleventh century; it is only after the imposition of mandatory celibacy that the Western clergy become a caste entirely apart).

Since virtually no one could really speak Latin, this made life more difficult for the acolytes. The "tricks" employed to teach the acolytes even the simplest responses are such that if I were to give some choice examples, no one would believe them!

Sometimes this even affected the clergy - and again, with some difficulty I refrain from giving examples.

Fr. Serge

This issue is unlikely to resolved until celibate permanent deacons become accepted in Catholicism. I think that having celibate men ordained to the permanent diaconate would cement the idea that the diaconate is a distinct vocation from priesthood, that men may have whether they are able to be priests or not. Until there are more celibates actively choosing the diaconate it will continue to be seen in some circles as a ministry for people who can't commit to celibacy rather than as an essential ministry of the church. Of course this perspective is totally wrong, but I have to say I know a few bishops and priests who view the permanent diaconate that way.

Celibate deacons are not a crazy idea - I know of five celibate (not monastic) deacons in Orthodoxy in Australia in three different jurisdictions. They are all valued as members of their parish clergy and in fact somewhat relied upon as they can often be available for services during the week when married clergy cannot. Not having children etc they are not as tied down to making a regular income.

When in my Catholic days I expressed a desire to be a deacon and celibate to boot, I was generally asked "why not be a priest?" and answers along the lines of "I don't have a vocation for it" were generally not accepted.

Hi,


Celibate permanent deacons are rare, yes, but not unheard of.

I know of at least one in our Archdiocese and this year's aspirancy class has two candidates who are not married (I am not sure if they are actually single or widowed or if they had ever been married).

I agree, celibate permanent deacons will challenge a good number of misconceptions that the Western Church is still dragging along about Holy Orders.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

All monastic deacons are celibate. And the canons of the Western Church in the 4-7th centuries seem to require all those ordained to higher orders, including the diaconate, be celibate whether monastic or not. This was reaffirmed when celibacy was finally imposed in the eleventh century, but by then the diaconate was considered merely an intermediate step on the cursus honorum. The current Latin discipline, allowing for married deacons, is therefore something of an innovation on their part.

But, as for allowing permanent secular celibate deacons, I think I have a problem with that, but only because I have a problem with celibates living outside of a monastic framework, period. I think a lot of mischief has resulted from that anomalous situation.

Just for clarification, current canons on the permanent secular diaconate allow ordination of celibate men to the permanent diaconate at 25 and married men at 35.

THis in itself is interesting and redolent of discrimination. Firstly, the permanent diaconate has a higher age for ordination than the transitional (I think the current age for transitional is 24, up from 23?), but secondly, the age requirement for married men is interesting, especially since in many cultures men are marrying around 30 which imposes it's own age requirement. My somewhat cynical hypothesis is that the higher age requirement exists to try and nab people for the priesthood and that the married age requirement is a concession.

I don't see any good reason why there should not be one age requirement for all deacons.

Perso

I think I should like to see the age for ordination to the presbyterate restored at least to that which is was in the patristic era (30), though perhaps it should be adjusted upward to account for our longer life expectancies. Remember that a thirty year old man in the fourth century would be bordering on middle age, at a time when most people did not make it to sixty. The implication, then, is the Church wanted men of intellectual and emotional maturity, who had seen something of the world and had a track record of stability, wisdom and good judgment. I would say that in today's world, we should definitely be looking at priests in their forties who have held some sort of real job in the world. As for deacons, the canons, to say nothing of scripture, indicate that these should be mature men as well, so perhaps the same age, minus a year or two, would suffice for them as well.

In the Orthodox church the age for priesthood is 30 and 25 for the diaconate. I think the two Hilarions (of New york & Sydney and of Tomsk) were the youngest Orthodox bishops, both in their mid 30s at ordination.

To my knowledge, there is no uniform age limit adhered to across the Orthodox Church as a whole. It is my understanding that 30 is the minimum age for a Bishop. In my diocese, all seminarians are required to have an accredited Bachelor's degree prior to entering a three year,full-time program. There are exceptions to that general rule within the discretion of the Bishop.

Hello,

The age requirement of 35 can easlily be dispensed. There is a practical reason for it: At 35, a married man is usually still raising young children and it is unwise fo the Church to offer these young parents an exuse not to devote themselves to that responsibility.

I am 38 years old, my youngest son is 11. God willing, at 39 I will be one of the (if not *the*) youngest deacons in the Archdiocese. I don't believe I could've started the formation program much earlier than when I was 34.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

Given that the deacon is ordained not unto the priesthood but unto the ministry [to the bishop] does this not establish a unique relationship between the bishop and each deacon singularly? Note that in the Roman form of ordination this is expressed ritually for only the bishop lays hands on the candidate for the diaconate as is the case for all the minor orders [instituted ministries] while at the ordination of a presbyter, not only the bishop but the other members of the college of presbyters likewise lay on hands. Furthermore,there is a corporate laying on of hands for the ordination of a bishop.

In each of these ordinations a uniquely different relationship is established. It is the relationship that determines one’s order in the Church. Each person in the Church is in one of the orders and only one order at any one time.

A bishop was at one time in the order of the baptized. His relationship with Christ and the other members of Christ’s Body, the Church, was determined by his place [order] in the baptized. When he was ordained a deacon, he maintained or kept the character received in baptism and chrismation but he was no longer numbered among the baptized laity. Having received the character of baptism and chrismation, he can never be baptized or chrismated again. The character seals the candidate and marks the candidate out in a definitive way and cannot be lost. According to the particular mystery [sacrament] the character conforms the candidate to Christ. A new ordination changes his relationship to his bishop, the presbyters, his fellow deacons, and to the laity. This new relationship brought with it a share in the apostolic mandate and ministry with particular obligations and functions especially in regards to his bishop.

Once ordained to the presbyterate, the former deacon no longer has the same relationship to his bishop or to the other members of the Church. He does not lose the character of the diaconate or the ability to do what he did as a deacon but he can no longer do the liturgical diaconal functions as a deacon for he is now really and truly a priest. He belongs to a different order, or as some would say a different rank [range] within the sacrament of holy order. Should not the priest always present himself as a priest? And should this not be especially true in the liturgical actions of the Church? For in the liturgy the Church should be truly what it is – the Body of Christ which manifests itself as the One Body but with diverse orders and ministries? There is One Spirit but many charismas.

The bishop should always be seen to be bishop. He should not disguise himself as a presbyter. Image that there are many bishops present but no presbyters or deacons or subdeacons, or readers or laity: thus, some of the bishops serve vested as bishops, some serve vested as priests, some vested as deacons, some vested as subdeacons, some vested as readers, and some attired as laity. Does this give an authentic, real and truthful manifestation of the Church? This would not be a problem if truth was not necessary. Who would know? As Fr. Serge has pointed out in the words of Patriarch Maximos IV, “God would know.” The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Church is united to the Holy Trinity. By grace the members of the Church share in the Trinitarian life. The Church’s liturgical life must manifest the truth about itself and the Trinity.

Given the considerable number of views this topic has received, I wonder if anyone has any more theological comments? They would be most welcome.

Can someone help me with the type of theological thinking found in the following?

It is taken from:

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html


2.May priests vest and function as deacons and sub-deacons?

In smaller parishes it is difficult to celebrate Solemn Mass due to the scarcity of priests. Thus, Solemn Mass is often served by three priests, who function as Priest, Deacon and Sub-deacon, wearing the vestments of Priest, Deacon, Sub-deacon. This is not "role playing" as some might imagine. One who is ordained to a higher order does not forfeit the lower orders he has received. Recall that a Bishop wears the dalmatic under his chasuble when celebrating Mass.

I would say that this is wishful theology done in an attempt to justify the action the theologian was seeking to justify.

A man ordained to the priesthood who then vests as a sub-deacon publicly witnesses a priestly rank that is different than the one he was ordained for. According to the posted theology a bishop may serve as a sub-deacon, for his ordination to sub-lector is still there. Do you think any bishop would do so, to publicly witness a priestly rank other then his own? 'Nuff said about wishful theology.

While I can see Admin's point (i.e. that this sort of argument kind of reeks of "the ends justify the means"), I think it has some merit in real world application.

Should people be deprived of Solemn High Masses because there is a paucity of subdeacons and deacons in certain parishes? Of course, one could answer that going without Solemn Mass because of this scarcity would really reinforce the importance of these orders. At the same time, I don't think this can totally justify no Solemn Masses.

Alexis

Alexis,

You also are using "the ends justify the means theology". The answer to the problem of a paucity of sub-deacons and deacons is to encourage those vocations, and to ordain qualified men to those ranks. The answer is not to have priests play act a role other then the one they were ordained for.

John

I get what you're saying, John, but in the meantime what about the faithful who, if this were strictly enforced, would be deprived of the normative (albeit not the most common - let's not even get into that) form of the Traditional Mass?

I'd bring this out of the realm of the Extraordinary Form and into the the Ordinary Form, except that subdeacons don't exist and deacons seem just a little more than glorified acolytes in the New Mass, so no deacons doesn't seem like such a big deal. Which is in itself a shame.

Alexis

Liturgical services should be as real as the rest of one's life in Christ. Does the priest who vests as a subdeacon or deacon in liturgical servies present himself as a subdeacon or deacon outside of liturgical servies? Obviously not. I just wonder what response one might get if Fr. X who "plays" deacon was addressed as Deacon X?

"In smaller parishes it is difficult to celebrate Solemn Mass due to the scarcity of priests. Thus, Solemn Mass is often served by three priests, who function as Priest, Deacon and Sub-deacon, wearing the vestments of Priest, Deacon, Sub-deacon."
The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is not a scarcity of priests but of deacons and subdeacons that has led to this abuse of orders. Sacrosanctum Concilium section 28 corrects this abuse in principle yet it appears that there are some in the Catholic Church who in practice consider themselves exempt from this clearly articulated norm.

"This is not "role playing" as some might imagine." I need not imagine this is "role playing", it is "role playing". The priest is playing the role of deacon or subdeacon not being the priest he is.


A person can be in only one order in the Church at any one time. Some of the traditional orders as witnessed by the Byzantine liturgical books: catechumens, photozomenoi, baptized/chrismated, taper-bearer, lector/cantor/reader, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, bishop. That a presbyter can do what a deacon does liturgically does not mean the presbyter is in the order of the diaconate, and therefore should not present himself as if he were. Authenticity and truthfulness are a pre-requisite to life in Christ. Liturgy is not something to play around with as it makes present the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Christ was not playing a role but being who he was on the cross when he sacrificed himself for the life of the world and its salvation.

Liturgy also manifests the Church. This manifestation should be authentic and truthful. The prist who vests as a deacon or subdeacon is not manifesting the Church or himself as he really is. Liturgy cannot be reduced to roles and functions but is rather the manifestation of the real Body of Christ. Each member of the Body being precisely who he or she is according to the order one is living. Liturgy should never be false, especially as the goal is an authentic, real and truthful communion in the Holy Trinity.

You seem to be suggesting that perceived pastoral need is justification for bad theology? Sorry, that is just another way of saying the ends justify the means. Wrong is wrong. The only correct way forward is to restore these roles.

Alexis: The traditionalist societies (SSPX, Institute of Christ the King, and FSSP) still ordain subdeacons. Almost all of them, however, go on to be ordained deacons then priests.

John,
I am in full agreement, a pastoral need does not justify a bad means to a good end. In this case the end is not good as the end is a fasification of what the Church really is.

When the liturgical books call for deacons, subdeacons, readers, etc., this should be taken in the literal sense. The books don't call for substitutes. This type of reasoning present by the "traditionalists" would permit raisin bread just in case one did not have prosphora. And would finally lead to raisin bread trumping real prosphora because raisin bread while being bread has something extra. 'The priest is something more than the deacon, subdeacon, etc.' "One who is ordained to a higher order does not forfeit the lower orders he has received." Raisin bread does not forfeit the essence of bread. This might appear logical at first sight but raisin bread is not real prosphora.

The solution as you have suggested is to train and ordain men to the diaconate and the minor orders. Given that the Latin Church now has over 35,000 deacons what is the real problem? May I suggest that the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Church and her liturgy. While the form appears real the content is not. And none of this is "traditional" as it is not part of the hermenutic of continuity - it is a church that liturgically gets reduced to the priest and his private mass and thus no one else is really needed. When a more "solemn" form of mass is needed whatever this might mean, priests and lay servers do it all. This is a complete ruputure of the authentic tradition of orders and the nature of the Church.

Thanks for your thoughts on this John. Thye are quite helpful.

It is a fact that the Second Vatican Council defined the doctrine of three levels of priesthood: deacon, presbyter, bishop. No subdeacons.

I have encountered an opinion that this means that the problem is deeper, as it supposedly means that the traditional societies are simulating subdeaconal ordinations, that is, they're performing a ceremony that does not change the ontological status of the "ordained". That is, the traditional subdeacons are vested as clerics, act as a clerics, play clerical liturgical roles, give clerical vows etc. nevertheless they're NOT clergy but STILL laymen... but I'm not clever enough to tell whether this is true or not.

The subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin church.

The papal document officially abolishing the subdiaconate (Ministeria Quaedam) is clear:

No more minor orders.
Only two instituted liturgical ministries: Reader and Acolyte.
Everything the Subdeacon could do, the Acolyte can do.
Moreover, when there is a legitimate reason to do so, Acolytes might be called Subdeacons.
Readers and Acolytes are lay men, not clerics. In the Latin church you become a cleric when you are ordained a deacon.

Shalom,
Memo

What's always been interesting to me is this:

Right now, as it stands and as Memo points out, the subdiaconate has been abolished in the Latin Church and is therefore non-existent. Let us leave aside for the moment what actually goes on in the subdiaconal ordinations that are performed, with the knowledge of the highest echelons in the Church and the Pope himself, in the Latin Rite fraternities and societies that use primarily or exclusively the Traditional Rites. Is this play-acting? What's going on at these ordinations? Are they simulated? They directly contravene Ministeria Quaedam, but are allowed to go on. Such a mess, we can all agree.

But beyond that, what is even more interesting to me is that if one argues for a cleric only sticking to his currently ordained rank and not a rank he had before, then a Solemn Mass, the normative Mass for Latin Catholics for centuries upon centuries, would apparently be completely impossible! Since we no longer "have" real subdeacons, and the Solemn Mass calls for a subdeacon, then what to do?

As Memo said, acolytes can now take on the roles of subdeacons. I suppose this is allowed for the Extraordinary Form? I suppose it must be; but then how is this squared with the liturgical books in use in 1962? A question for Ecclesia Dei, perhaps - and perhaps it's already been answered and I've overlooked it.

The point is, to have to fill in a Solemn Mass with an acolyte in a subdeacon's place really leads me to wonder: why was the subdiaconate abolished? What kind of mindset does it take to dismantle a clerical position so ancient? To me, it's both frightening and shocking.

And in the meantime, either subdiaconal ordinations (or whatever they are) should stop, or else the Church should reinstitute the subdiaconate (I'd of course be in favor of the latter). But the fact that the two are allowed to co-exist as if there is no contradiction is almost intolerable to my sense of honesty. Either accept what you've done, i.e. completely rearranged and in some cases destroyed clerical roles around since the Church's earliest days, or fix it!

Alexis

The Subdeaconate was not abolished it was 'rebranded' and if any Episcopal conference anywhere in the world wanted to they could keep on using the term.

In the UGCC parish I attend we had a latin Acolyte change to the UGCC eparchy and he came in as a Subdeacon, the only one in the eparchy.

I suggest the Council intended that Deaconate and subdeaconate, rebranded as Acolyte, could take on a life of their own and come back into being in every parish and become the norm. Like a lot of good things from the Council it did not quiet work out that way.

Nothing needs to stop at all. The office never went away and so nothing strange is going on when those with the old Latin Rites create Subdeacons and the next mainstream Latin Parish institutes Acolytes. Both are doing the same thing.

Pavel Ivanovich,

subdeaconate in the East is a minor oder. But in the West:



Acolytate existed in the Western Church before the Second Vatican Council, it was immediately preceding subdeaconate. The two offices are not identical. The acolytes did not take vows and were not celibate... but subdeaconate is not of divine institution, at least according to Catholic Encyclopedia. What a mess.

The Subdeacon, Acolyte, Reader, and Candlebearer/tapirbearer are all of great age; 2nd century. The subdeacon has been held to a higher standard of behavior since at least the 3rd C (apostolic constitutions), but is clearly not biblical in origin, tho the order predates the Canon of the Bible!

That said, a return to installation and minor ordination can not HURT the church.

Then again, the traditionalists who ordain subdeacons also ordain acolytes, too... and do so according to the 1962 Rituale Romanum and Pontifical Romanum... as their charters specify they can/should/must.

Even Ruthenian Particular Law provides for Lector, Acolyte, and Subdeacon minor orders...

Rome should return to that. But due to the major orders version of the Roman Subdeacon, a lifetime without is a just transition to a return to orthopraxis on the matter of subdeacons as minor orders.

What do the texts say?

Ministeria quaedam 15 August 1972 section IV reads: “Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.”

What does this mean for the subdiaconate?
1. In the Latin Church its functions are entrusted to the ministries of reader and acolyte.
2. It does not exist as a major order.
3. The acolyte at the discretion of the conference of bishops may be referred to as a subdeacon.

Code of Canon Law 1982, Canon 266 §1. “ A person becomes a cleric through the reception of diaconate and is incardinated into the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced.”

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 1990, Canon 327. “If besides bishops, presbyters or deacons, other ministers, constituted in minor orders, generally called minor clerics, are admitted or instituted for the service if the people of God or to exercise the functions of the sacred liturgy, they are goverened only by the particular law of their own Church sui iuris.”

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.”

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.”

The Ceremonial of Bishops 1984 states in section 22: “Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; [here the footnote refers to Sacrosanctum Concilium section 28 – this was written with the Missale Romanum 1962 and the Caeremoniale Episcoporum 1886 in mind and 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 rite and the norms of the liturgy.] in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.”

Does the priest who vests as a subdeacon or deacon in liturgical servies present himself as a subdeacon or deacon outside of liturgical servies?

Are you opposed to the reverse practice as well? People who are not acolytes take that role all the time.

I just wonder what response one might get if Fr. X who "plays" deacon was addressed as Deacon X?

They'll get a kind explanation of the situation. Just like I explain to people who see me vested in cassock and surplice while I'm preparing for the liturgy that I'm not a priest, but an altar server.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is not a scarcity of priests but of deacons and subdeacons that has led to this abuse of orders. Sacrosanctum Concilium section 28 corrects this abuse in principle yet it appears that there are some in the Catholic Church who in practice consider themselves exempt from this clearly articulated norm.

This practice is hundreds of years old. The liturgical laws of the modern rite do not apply to the traditional rite.

As I understand the western theology of orders, one does not cease to be the lower order when one is promoted to the higher. Indeed, this is especially the case after Ministeria Quadem. The ministries of Lector and Acolyte are treated as being held simultaneously:

Can. 1035 §1. Before anyone is promoted to the permanent or transitional diaconate, he is required to have received the ministries of lector and acolyte and to have exercised them for a suitable period of time.

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: "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:

"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 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), 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

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.