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.