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

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