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...