www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Concelebration

It is now custom in the Roman Church to encourage attending priests to "concelebrate" rather than merely serve as acolyte, deacon, or remain in the pew.

Does the Eastern Church practice concelebration in the Divine Liturgy when more than one priest is present?

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Actually, our liturgical gurus here can and doubtless will give you a much fuller account of this.

But concelebration is the way the East normally celebrates the liturgy - especially since in Orthodoxy the rule is that only one Divine Liturgy can be celebrated at one altar on any given day.

God bless, Anglican Servant of God!

Alex

Don't know if I'm a liturgical guru, but we certainly do not encourage priests to serve as acolyte or deacon, or to remain in the pew (in fact we shouldn't have anybody in pews). On the other hand, things have gone to the other extreme - as with situations of so many "concelebrants" that most of these priests are at a ridiculous distance from the Holy Table (what Archimandrite Robert Taft has called "mob concelebrations"). Incognitus

I guess, in a sense, Vatican 2 was (kind of) a return to Eastern heritage. Rome now has concelebration, permanent deacons, standing Communion, vernacular, and Communion in both kinds.

As an Anglican, I like all that (except for standing Communion).

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

So you are one of those who just won't stand for It?

Alex

Here's my lame attempt. Concelebration with as many clergy as are present is the norm. Where there isa plethora present, however, there are things that can be done.

Deacons: Two deacons are honestly the most that a typical Divine Liturgy can accomodate. Sometimes one can go as high as four with two sets of two deacons switiching off what litanies they cover. If there is a bishop present but not celebrating (see below) a deacons may serve as a member of a bishop's "assista."

Where there is a grand occasion where it would be "nice" to have someone act as a deacon and there is no "real" one present (or if the real deacon can't sing well ), a priest may "drop down" in rank and serve as a deacon for that Liturgy.


Preists: As mentioned above, the tradition is that as many priests as are present should be allowed to celebrate. But, given practicalitites, there might be simply too many (a bishop's installation comesto mind as an example). In that case, I believe that those not celebrating at the Holy Table do not vest, but simply wear a riassa, an epitrachyl' and a pectoral cross appropriate for his priestly rank. They should stand in the Kliros, if there is one and if there is room enough for all of them. Otherwise, among the faithful is OK as well. Non-celebrating priests, like deacons, can also be a part of a non-celebrating bishop's assista.


Bishops: A bishop can never play "second fiddle" to a priest or a lower-ranking bishop and, therefore, it is sometimes appropriate for a bishop to be present but not celebrating. An example might be for Liturgy celebrating an anniversary of ordination. In that case, the preist or bishop being honored would be the "main celebrant" while the higher-ranking bishop would sit in the Kliros with his assista. As with a priest, a non-celebrating bishop does not vest fully.

Interesting tidbit, however, when the Liturgy calls for a blessing, the highest-ranking member of the clergy gives it, whether celebrating or not.

Finally, it's very cool to get a bunch of priests together who can sing and harmonize with each other. According to the rubrics of the Byzantine Rite, all of the celebrating bishops and priests are to chant "Take this and eat, etc." Take this and drink, etc.," and "Yours, from your own" together. It's very nice to hear it in harmony.

Also, during Matins, Vespers or Great Compline there are situations where it is OK for the priests to "trade verses" of psalms with the cantors/choir. It can be a very cool effect if one gets it right.

I'm sure I've missed something, but - there it is.

Yours,

halychanyn

As far as I know, there is no actual set limit for the number of deacons that can serve, practically or otherwise. An ancient custom refered to in Hypolitus' "On Apostolic Tradition" specifies that the number of deacons cannot exceed seven. If more are needed, i.e. there are more than one bishop+six priests, then subdeacons are used to serve the remaining priests, but do not say anything. If I am remembering all this correctly, then this, i assume, is why our modern subdeacon cannot intone a Litany (save in special cases), but can tough the Holy Table, the sacred vessels, and incense at the Great Entrance &c.

Precisely what, may I ask, is a Bishop's assista? I've looked in several editions of the Archieraticon/Chinovnik in Church Slavonic and in Greek and I cannot find any such thing. As to deacons: it is really proper for deacons to look after the dikero-trikera and the exapteryga/ripidia; in these times acolytes do it instead because of a shortage of deacons. It is utterly incorrect for a priest to pretend to be a deacon. Incognitus

It is my understanding that contrary to modern Latin practice, it is not proper in any of the Easter Rites nor ancient Latin practice for more than the main celebrant to say the Epiclesis. Is this true, or just polemic from the Latin Traditionalists?

If it is true, what is the origin of modern Latin practice and what is their justification?

Justin

We should remember that the role of the deacon has evolved into a more narrowly liturgical one than in apostolic times. Deacons no longer have to collect and organise the offerings of the laos and tend to be multiplied not because of liturgical need and practicality, but because of solemnity.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

It took many years for the hierarchical lower orders to develop. Obviously in the early church only deacon, presbyter, and bishop were recognized at least in the first two or three hundred years.

In current practice, at the vesting of the bishop in the temple, the trikery/dikery are handed to the bishop by the subdeacons, even with a protodeacon and deacon serving, even if there are more than two deacons serving. According to the Archieratikon, the subdeacons actually take the trikery/dikery from the deacons and give them to the Bishop. The subdeacons are also those entrusted with vesting the Bishop, not the deacons, again regardless of how many deacons are present.

When the deacons are censing and praying for the Bishop, or chanting their litanies as proper, they can't hold the dikery/trikery.

And also historically because the deacons were often readying the gifts (in the skeuphylakion if a church had a separate preparation chapel for that purpose) the subdeacons were employed to carry the fans, dikery/trikery, etc. even in the Great Church. It is actually quite proper for the subdeacons to carry things, wash the Bishop's hands, etc. as they are the "servants to the servant", hence "sub-deacon".

Back on topic, concelebration has always been a physical manifestation of ecclesial communion both in the East and West. It is a beautiful liturgical expression of "see how good it is for brothers to dwell in unity".

Even in the Tridentine Rite, which eventually minimalized concelebration, it can still be found in the rite of ordination of a priest. This is one liturgical reform in the Roman Rite that is both historically and liturgically proper and good to restore.

Incognitus said:

Well, then, when you get up to heaven, look up Patriarch Joseph and ask him why he used four priests to serve as deacons (including my late grandfather and great-uncle) during the concecration of St. Sophia.

Yours,

halychanyn

Hey, everybody can make a mistake.

anastasios

With no apologies to Patriarch Joseph - who should have known better - both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rites currently forbid the outrageous practice of presbyters pretending to be deacons. If anyone wants the specific reference, I can provide it.
It is certainly possible for a deacon to hold a dikirion or trikirion in one hand, a thurible in the other hand, and chant prayers most sonorously. Incognitus

Why is it so "outrageous?" Help me out here. Is it any more or less outrageous than a bishop wearing only priestly vestments when celebrating a private liturgy?

Yours,

halychanyn