www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Bi-Ritual Deacons?

I know that priests can be bi-ritual, but can deacons?

John,

Absolutely - in fact, my dear friend and brother, who posts here as Father Deacon Ed, is such, serving both a Latin parish and a Melkite parish.

Actually, these days it would probably be more proper to speak of "bi-ecclesial" rather than "bi-ritual", but that change will never happen. The reason is well-illustrated by the case of Deacon Stan, husband to our sister Pani Rose; he's a Ruthenian deacon serving a Melkite parish.

Many years,

Neil

Deacons do not need "bi-ritual" faculties.

Fr. Serge

They do, however, require the approval of the hierarchs in each of the jurisdictions involved.

Many years,

Neil

The maronite parish I go to when I am home has a latin deacon that serves it as well and the Maronite mission I go to when I am at school also has a latin deacon there as well.

A deacon serving outside his own diocese requires the approval of the hierarchs in question IF he is do to something (such as preach) which requires jurisdiction.

Fr. Serge

Although, technically, he's serving outside his diocese if he's serving in the next parish, and it's a different sui iuris church.
Now, what constitutes "hierarchs": bishop? Patriarch?

John,

For this purpose, the local ordinary with jurisdiction over the deacon - be it an exarch, eparch, metropolitan, whomever.

Many years,

Neil

"Hierarch" is a generic term meaning anyone who has been duly consecrated to the episcopate. But as I used it, it refers to a hierarch with jurisdiction who is able to delegate that jurisdiction - to preach sermons, for example.

Fr. Serge

So, in this sense, "hierarch" = "ordinary". Cool!

Just trying to learn all my terminology
I learn by context, so having scenarios to play out in my head allows me to learn so much more than just asking, "What does this word mean"?

Now, as I understand it, Eastern deacons can preach, and they can lead non-sacramental prayer services, and that's about it. Can they do blessings?

This is where the question comes into play. Let's say we have Byzantine Deacon Plavcan and Roman Deacon McCartney.

Deacon McCartney can fill all sorts of sacramental and ceremonial roles. If he should desire to participate in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as a deacon, he just needs permission from the local eparch (and obviously the pastors). He can then go assist as a deacon at the nearest Byzantine parish as well as the Roman parish.

Now, let's say Deacon McCartney has a niece who's Byzantine, and she'd like Deacon McCartney to baptize her child. He could not perform the baptism in the Byzantine context. But his niece *could* get permission to baptize her child in the Roman Rite parish. That would be no different than someone who lived in Virginia asking permission to have her child baptized in South Carolina.

On the other hand, we have Deacon Plavcan. Deacon Plavcan is Byzantine, but he wants to be able to celebrate the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. So he can get the proper permission, and he can go serve the nearest Roman Rite parish in Benediction.
He can also assist at Mass and preach the Gospel.

But, *as a Byzantine deacon*, Deacon Plavcan has no authority to administer any sacraments (except emergency baptism).

Am I right so far, in my assessment?

Now, what if Deacon Plavcan's niece wanted him to officiate at her wedding?
Would he not, in this sense, need to receive "faculties" from the Roman Rite that he does not have as a Byzantine deacon? Or would such a scenario be impossible?

John,


I'm sure you were writing in a general sense, but it is important to note that this situation is NOT "no different than someone who lived in Virginia asking permission to have her child baptized in South Carolina." Baptism is the entry into a church, and one should not simply baptize someone outside of the sui juris church to which they belong, unless there are serious reasons (imminent death, etc.) So although a practice such as the one you describe might be allowed, it should be at the least discouraged from occurring for trivial purposes.

Francis,
Exactly
"No different" because one is not supposed to have a child baptized outside one's own diocese or even parish without serious reason and express permission.

Hi,



Well, that is not the current Latin practice. We are rather lax in the rules of who gets baptized when and where.

As for deacons serving in different Sui Iuris Churches with different understandings of the faculties of a deacon, the general recommendation is that a deacon should only exercise those faculties that are proper to him in the Church Sui Iuris in which he is incardinated.

That is, a Byzantine deacon should not baptize or be the official witness from the Church at a wedding, even in a Latin parish.

Conversely, deacons serving in churches other than their own, should be respectful of those churces' view of the role of the deacon. That is, a Latin deacon should not baptize at a Byzantine parish either.

This policy ends up being a policy of the least common denominator. It is not perfect, but it is the safest against scandal and confusion.

Shalom,
Memo

I was temporarily in Iowa as a graduate student when the twins were born. We went through the hoops to get them baptized at my parents church in California (so that more family could come)--but just barely.

The parishes (diocese?)had different requirements for preparation, and the CA parish wanted us to take a baptismal class (our oldest was 6 or 7 at the time). By the time this all came out, there weren't any left before the trip.

The Iowa deacon solved it by adding us to the instructional staff for the classes in the Iowa parish (he described his solution as "Jesuitical":)). However, by that point we were so close to the magic date that very few were able to make it

Then the deacon forgot to tell us when the classes were . . . (I'm pretty sure that was an oversight, as he was quite pleased with himself for having snared us

hawk

Memo,

It *is* current Latin "policy," if not practice. The VA-SC example was a real one. We had our son baptized in SC while we were still living in VA, because for some reason we picked my sister to be the godmother, and she felt that it was far less inconvenient for us to take time off our jobs and come down to her side than for her to actually come visit us for a change.

Anyway, we had to get a letter from our parish giving both permission and acknowleding we were "in good standing," had taken baptism class, etc., as well as the requisite letters for the godparents. And our parish only permitted it because we had semi-valid reason and an established relatinship with the parish where he was baptized.

Thanks for answering the question, too!
What about the blessing thing? What are the limits of an Eastern deacon in terms of blessing?

this discussion is becoming rabbinical. However, as regards weddings: our Deacons have no faculties to preside at a wedding, and Rome has ruled in a specific case that even if a Deacon has written permission from the bishop, such a ceremony (a wedding presided by a Deacon instead of a Priest) is invalid.

If any of our Deacons were to ask my advice as to whether he should accept an invitation to preside at a Latin wedding, I would advise him against it vehemently. If the Deacon happened to be attached to my parish, I would forbid it point-blank, in writing, with a copy to the bishop. It is not good to cause or abet such confusion.

Fr. Serge

Hi,

I understand you have to fulfill the parish's requirements to have your baby baptized there.

I'd find it very rare, though, if these requirements went beyond a certificate that you took the preparation classes elsewhere, provided that these classes are comparable to what the parish offers.

Since there are usually diocesan directives about these, baptism in a different parish within the same diocese are usually not a big problem.

In our parish, we have preparation classes every week, so in theory, if there is "room" for one more baptism, you could show up to to the pastoral office on Monday, take the class on Wednesday and have your child baptized that Saturday.

Shalom,
Memo

Hi, Fr. Serge,

"Becoming," or is?

From all the articles I've read on the differences between East and West, I wasn't sure if there was a *lack* of information on Eastern Deacons, or if their ceremonial roles were really that limited.

Which raises two more questions, on the "big picture":

1. What *is* the role of the Deacon in the East, in terms of his overall "job" in the Church? In the early Church, of course, deacons did service work, the kind of work we often see done by non-cloistered religious today.

2. Why did Rome give Latin Rite permanent deacons so many faculties?

Some thoughts.

Deacons did and do "service work" but this aspect of the diaconal ministry is too often overemphasized. The role of the deacon, as are all ministries in the Church, is the ministry of Christ, link [patronagechurch.com] .

The Byzantine east has kept the liturgical distinction between deacon and priest intact. The deacon assists the one who presides at the Eucharist, the priest: the bishop as THE head and the presbyters as his delegates. Ordinarily, the deacon would not be required to lead a service, especially since he does not give liturgical blessings which are reserved to the priest.

By ordination deacons, long-term, short-term, Roman, Byzantine, Coptic etc. are the same -- deacons. That Latin deacons have "faculties" or ordinary or extraordinary ministries different from Byzantine deacons is, therefore (I would presume) a matter of delegation and not intrinsic ability to function as a deacon.

Apart from further confusing the situation, I don't see why it would be impossible for a Byzantine deacon to be able to officiate at a Roman rite wedding. He would certainly feel outside his element and would be straining his liturgical comfort zone. A Roman (or any) deacon officiating at a Byzantine rite wedding would necessitate his giving a blessing which is outside his liturgical mandate in that rite. Consider as a similar but inverted case the role of the presbyter as the minister of Chrismation/Confirmation in East and West.

Dn. Anthony

Fr. Deacon Anthony,


I would agree that all deacons, irrespective of ritual Church are the same. But I would say that the fact that Latin deacons do things Eastern deacons don't do is both a matter of intrinsic ability and delegation by the Church. If a Latin deacon can bless it must therefore be intrinsic to the office of deacon to bless or no deacon could do it. However that does not prevent the Church from restricting a deacon, or a priest, using his intrinsic ability. Just as intrinsically a priest has the abililty to confirm or grant absolution, the Church places limits on these faculties, so too the Church has restricted Eastern deacons from imparting blessings.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Yes, this is in fact what I was trying to convey, but I see how my phrasing could be misconstrued, and I thank you for the clarification.

Dn. Anthony

I just realized that the link I provided is incorrect. The correct link is link [patronagechurch.com] .

Dn. Anthony

Dear Deacons,

Thanks for your replies. They both make a lot of sense.
I just thoougt of an analogy. The Church's bestowing the "right" to give a blessing really depends upon circumstances and prudence.
For example, the Roman Church extends even to laity the right to give certain blessings (beyond just a basic "cross on the forehead".

Let's look at the example of exorcism, which is, of course, one form of blessing (and one of the highest and, today, most restricted). Prior to the 1983 Code of Canon law, any priest could perform an exorcism at his own discretion. Leo XIII allowed wider use of exorcisms, even by laity, but then that was restricted by Vatican II and the 1983 Code. At some points, the Church has given to deacons the right to perform exorcisms, restricting that right at others.

So, the Church--in total or in localities--assesses the situation and decides to whom it is prudent to give certain (for lack of a bettr word) "faculties."

In some cases, where greater need exists, she extends to deacons, religious or even laity abilities from which they are normally restricted (e.g., weddings, baptisms, exorcisms or blessings).
Other times, where greater danger of confusion or abuse exists, she restricts those abilities.

Dear John,

Perhaps "has become" is the best form of the verb in this instance!


You ask two quite sensible questions:


The role of the Deacon (as well as the role of the Subdeacon and the Lector) is primarily liturgical. To the extent that it can be extended, such an extension is one which is organically connected to the Deacon's liturgical work.

In passing, I should mention that more often than not the Deacon comes from the parish in which he serves, while the Priest seldom comes from the parish in which he serves. In practice, this means that the Deacon becomes an important element in the "glue" binding the Priest and the parish - maybe that's why too many Priests don't want Deacons!.




Rome had lost the diaconate completely. In almost every instance the "Deacon" at a Solemn Mass was in fact a Priest gussied up like a Deacon. The expression "permanent Deacon" is absurd; one Deacon is the same as another Deacon so far as his future potential is concerned - has anyone ever heard of a "permanent Priest?". But when Vatican II authorized the recovery of a functioning Diaconate, there were a number of bizarre results:

a) since the Deacon was not required to be celibate (and that, incidentally, undercuts the case for requiring the Priest to be celibate), a number of bishps and priests took it into their heads that here was the solution to the shortage of Priests - let the Deacon pretend to be a Priest in almost every situation (he can't quite "say Mass", but that's OK; we'll supply him with the reserved Eucharist so that he can say something that resembles a Mass and then communicate the faithful), we'll let him baptized, marry, and bury people, and so on and so on. This leaves the Priest with 2.5 functions remaining: only the Priest can consecrate the Eucharist; only the Priest can absolve the pentitent, and only the Priest, if so authorized, can confirm someone when the Bishop can't come! Talk about medievalism.

b. some Bishops went wild trying to insist that the Deacon is not a cleric! To promote this silly idea, they invented, among other things, the "permanent Deacon's alb", cut in such a way as to reveal the Deacon's necktie underneath (and no, I am not making this up). There is also, believe it or not, a different Latin stole for the "permanent Deacon" and the "transitional Deacon" (they concede that the "transitional Deacon" is a cleric - don't ask me what the basis for this distinction is supposed to be).

c. - this happened to a friend of mine. As a Deacon, my friend was assigned to serve no less than 14 parishes in northern Canada, with the result that he was never able to attend a Sunday Mass from one year to the next. Meanwhile, when the Bishop wanted to have a Pontifical Mass, he had to use a "pretend Deacon" - who was, of course, a Priest - because the real Deacons were running around their liturgical marathon pretending to be Priests! Again, I am not making this up.

What it boils down to is that Rome has yet to come to terms with the Diaconate (or with the episcopate, for that matter, but that's another discussion).

Fr. Serge

Father,
Again, very interesting "take" on the matter. There is definitely a great deal of stress on the difference between "permanent" and "transitory," which, from my limited research, seems to be different from the eastern churches, where the diaconate process is the same.
There's also what Archbishop Curtiss of Omaha says about his fellow bishops intentionally limiting the number of deacons and intentionally putting priests and deacons in non-parish "jobs" so that the bishops can justify putting women in as "pastoral associates" and whatnot.

Another factor I see in the permanent diaconate is an ecumenical gesture: the permanent deacon serves the same roles as a Protestant minister (including, as you note, being a kind of "social glue" for the parish).

At the risk of plagiarizing Gertrude Stein: a deacon is a deacon is a deacon is a deacon is a deacon is a deacon . . . you get the idea.

The deacon as an ersatz Protestant minister - hadn't heard that one before. Must think about this!

So far as our Church goes, the test of a really good Protodeacon can be stated succinctly: if the Protodeacon is really good, the presbyters are afraid of him!

If a deacon serves badly, the solution is easily stated: make him a presbyter immediately! His liturgical role can then be confined to one ecphonesis, and he can edit the diocesan newspaper, or run the finances, or supervise an orphange, or something.

Fr. Serge

Father,
That's funny! (both humorous and "funny strange"). In the West, we say that a Deacon's primary ministry is "in the world" (doing things like running orphanges and handling finances), and that his liturigcal role is just there to strengthen that.

In theory, the restoration of the diaconate was, as its original establishemnt in Acts, supposed to free up priests from "waiting tables" so they could focus more on Sacraments and pastoral ministry. In practice, (in US Roman churches, at leaset) deacons are used to *free* the priests from obligations like preaching, leading devotional services, etc., so that the priests can go play golf.

Which gets to the heart of my question (other than intrllecually trying to understand the various realtionships and diversities of the Universal Church), which I'm figuring should be posted to a new thread.

Hi John,

You are right.

The current implementation of the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church in the United States is a little bit at odds with the intention of the Conciliar Fathers and with the actual Latin Church practice elsewhere.

We are trying to fix that, but it will take time and people will have their feelings hurt in the process, so it is not going to be either quick or pretty.

Shalom,
Memo

I agree with Father Serge's analysis here. The phenomenon of a presiding diaconate, ever an issue in the late ante-Nicene period and one of many sore points with the presbyters (you can guess who came out on top in that debate), is really an attempt by the Latin hierarchy to have native clergy in mission territories (where married men predominate) until such time as a celibate man can be ordained to the priesthood. This, of course, does not sum up the entire value of diaconal ministry and its treatment in the documents concerning the restoration of the diaconate in the Latin Church and in various Eastern Churches. But it does explain the rationale for the presidential responsibilities being assigned to deacons, at least from the Council Fathers' perspective.

Now, of course, there are far more deacons in well established Churches than in mission territories.

Mandatory celibacy of the clergy, for all its virtue as a vocation, is both a gift and an overused strength for the Latins. Nevermind that it completely overlooks the Pauline criteria for vocational episcopal/presbyterial discernment: how a man manages his domestic household determines his worthiness for ministry in the household of the Church.

Just my two cents...

Gordo

Gordo,


I think you would have a hard time arguing that point as the mission territories have the least amount of deacons, in many cases the bishops don't want them, and plenty of vocations to the celibate priesthood. On the otherhand the diaconate has flourised in North America and Western Europe. I always found it ironic that the Eastern Churches get credit for the restoration fo the diaconate in the Latin Church, they did promote it at Vatican II, but themselves had and continue to have very few deacons.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

What I was addressing was the intent of the Council Fathers as reflected in the relevant texts of the Council as well as the speeches, not so much what followed after the restoration by Pope Paul VI. As I said above, whatever the intent, the reality is that there are far more deacons in well established first world dioceses than in mission territories.

As to the irony regarding the Eastern Churches, I agree. Each parish should have at least two or three deacons. Part of the issue is the restrictive way certain jurisdictions form deacons. The notion of a four year program is just absurd, especially with a single intake every four years. IMHO, it should be two years at most with two additional years if they desire preaching faculties, which not all do (nor should all receive). Such an approach assumes, of course, that there is a pipeline of men in minor orders. Restore minor orders and make them flourish and diaconal vocations will follow, IMHO.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Canon Law requires three and the Metropolia requires four because they do want all their deacons to preach at least once a month.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

One presumes that the minor orders preparation and service would account for at least one of those years.

What is the rationale for requiring the deacons to preach at least once a month? Not that I oppose diaconal preaching, but it certainly need not be a requirement for serving as a deacon.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Unfortunately minor orders, especially the subdiaconate, are seen as a ritual requirements and not much more. Some get subdiaconate at the same Liturgy they are ordained deacon.

The rationale? If you never do it you will never get good at it. I preach every other week and consider myself fortunate for having to do so. It has made me a much better homilist and improved my delivery.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

And yet it would seem that the men who do not serve as subdeacons may be missing out on an opportunity to explore and exercise this minor order more fully. It would also seem to be something of a testing ground for major orders, if it is guided properly and permitted to develop.

As to the preaching, as I said I think it is great that deacons can preach. And practice does bring one closer to perfection! At the same time, in thinking about the needs of parishes via-a-vis the Divine Liturgy and the common life, it would seem to me that the pressing need is for deacons to fulfill their ministry within and outside the assembly. The preaching deacon is more of a "nice to have" for many parishes, but it is not essential. Certain deacons should receive those faculties, but not necessarily all, IMHO.

That said, I do think it is something that should definitely be encouraged after ordination for most deacons, perhaps after further training in homiletics.

But meanwhile, to your point, our Churches have very few deacons. What I would propose would be a way to help ensure many more deacons serve in our parishes in a shorter period of time.

God bless,

Gordo

Good subdeacons who know what they are doing and do it well are a great blessing - we need more of them.

Fr. Serge

Amen!

Do subdeacons, in the absence of a deacon, offer the litanies in any of the Slavic Churches as they do in the Antiochian? (at least Antiochian Orthodox)

Back to the question of homilies and presidential responsibilities, I believe that the deacon is like the Word of God sent forth from the Father/Bishop to guide, inspire, animate, model, cultivate and develop the cosmos/assembly. He is in essence the Bishop's living homily in the community and the icon of the bishops diakonia to all his spiritual children, which is one of the reasons why we address deacons as "Father", since they sacramentally image a vital dimension of the Bishop's fatherhood: kenosis. As the Word of the Bishop, the deacon goes forth into the community as his "eyes, ears and hands" and returns with the needs/petitions/thanksgiving of the faithful to be presented to the Bishop in the Divine Liturgy. He is also like the angels who exercise a certain governance over the Cosmos and are often sent forth as messengers of the Most High. This is conveyed iconographically from time to time by angels in diaconal vestments, historically by the fact that deacons were often chosen to be messengers and bearers of charitable giving between the churches, and liturgically through the various prayers and actions of the deacons in the assembly.

But what happens to the exercise of this vital ministry when deacons are consumed with what are essentially sacerdotal, presidential responsibilities, such as baptizing and blessing marriages? (I have read in various publications that some Latin deacons feel this this from time to time.) The end result is that some feel that they are never able to exercise the ministry that is actually entrusted to them.

So I am grateful that we Easterns (at least traditionally!) know better how to properly use our deacons. (Now let's ordain more of them!) The Latin West is still trying to figure that one out, and I am afraid that, while Vatican II brought about a welcome "restoration", it also sowed some seeds of confusion vis-a-vis the proper exercise of this ministry through the addition of sacerdotal responsibilities.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I have, rarely, seen subdeacons chanting synaptes and ektenes. My own view is that if a subdeacon wishes to serve as a deacon, he should simply become a deacon.

Fr. Serge

What I've always felt my role was was as a priest in the classroom, college or possibly high school. The opportunity to impact lives is so great . . . and I do see that in a church where the deaconite is universally accepted by the laity as clergy,this is might be more properly a deaconal ministry. Today, however, to be effective, it would need to be presbyteral, not deaconal.

Hey, today's epistle

Edited: Hmm, I lost the original. Anyway, as to preaching: most deacons that I have encountered, eastern and western, have preached spectacularly[1]. Some likely comes from preaching less often, but also, deacons tend to be disproportionately college professors, lawyers, and others that communicate for a living.

hawk

While that would be nice, we have sixty-some-odd families in our parish. To get multiple deacons . . .

OTOH,west-central Pennsylvania is up to its ankles in deacons. In five years, I think I only saw a couple of masses/liturgies without a deacon.


In the Pittsburgh Metropolia (is that correct? I don't know enough greek to know all my singular's from plurals, and distinctly remember a Jebbie catching me on "criterium), it requires a two week stay at the seminary each summer during formation. Taking a specific two weeks each summer is an employment problem for most people in the U.S.
[/quote]

Yes, I believe that is correct. Plus additional coursework throughout the year.

Personally, I think a program like this one for doctrinal formation coupled with rubric training by your local priest and perhaps an annual retreat weekend would be sufficient. (Cantor training may also be a plus...)

http://www.manor.edu/coned/eastern.htm

Ideally, the more deacons a parish has (plus the more men in minor orders) the less burden on the priest. Plus, some of those deacons after a period of pastoral service may want to continue on for graduate work and may make excellent candidates for the presbyterate. Given the current trajectory of existing Eastern Churches, practically every church outside of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey should be seen as within mission territory and should be shepherded accordingly.

That means the organic growth and development of local clergy.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Anyone have an opinion on the manor college program? The eparchial people I have spoken with of late have had less than glowing comments about it.

Also heard that now that the archeparchy has gotten its accreditation the next task is to get distance education going. Regardless, I plan to start the Ukrainian Catholic program when it begins this year.

Out of curiosity, what has been shared?

Gordo

I feel compelled to respond (in a respectful manner) to Serge Keheler�s remarks from the perspective of a Latin Rite Catholic because his entry appears to include some inaccuracies and unsupported opinions rather than documented facts. My response is supported by the contents of the following documents, of which all are obtainable through the internet: Vatican II document, �Lumen Gentium�; Pope Paul�s VI�s Apostolic Letter �Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem� (general norms for restoring the permanent diaconate in the Latin Church), June 18, 1967; �Deacons Serve the Kingdom of God� and �The Deacon has Many Pastoral Functions� from the General Audiences of Pope John Paul II of October 5, 1993 and October 13, 1993, respectively; the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the Instruction �Redemptionis Sacramentum�; the Ceremonial of Bishops.

First of all, Keheler says that, �Rome had lost the diaconate completely.� This statement is simply untrue. In the early Church, where Christian communities were small and confined mostly to cities, the bishops functioned both as the pastors, assisted by deacons. Priests functioned as a council of advisors to the bishop, and when Christian communities expanded to the rural areas, the priests were sent by the bishops to preside over them for day to day pastoral needs, with the help of deacons where possible. With the passage of time, especially after the Council of Nicaea in 325 further defined and expanded the role of priests, priests began to assume most if not all service functions of the deacons, making the need for them less necessary (at least in the West). As a result, ordination to the diaconate became only a brief, (usually six months) final step in preparation for the priesthood. The status of the diaconate in the Latin Church remained that way until Vatican II (even though restoration of the diaconate as a permanent rank of clergy was discussed at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century). Thus, the diaconate has always existed in the Latin Church.

Keheler goes on to say that �In almost every instance the "Deacon" at a Solemn Mass was in fact a Priest gussied up like a Deacon.� The fact was that the liturgy had pretty much been static through the centuries and �solemn high� masses, did in fact call for the functions of both a deacon and a subdeacon. From a practical standpoint, since the only ordained deacons (and subdeacons for that matter) available in a typical diocese for many centuries, until after Vatican II, were only a handful of seminarians, it would be impossible to have them serve in their actual roles in each and every parish. Following the tenet that one of a higher rank can perform the duties of those at a lesser rank, and since there were a sufficient number of available priests, priests were in fact �vested� as deacons and subdeacons and performed their necessary functions at solemn high masses.

Next, Serge says, �The expression "permanent Deacon" is absurd,� etc. As I mentioned above, seminarians are ordained deacons intended to serve as such for a brief period on their way to ordination as priests. The Latin Church refers to these �temporary� deacons as �transitional deacons� as opposed to �permanent deacons� as a way of differentiating between the two in regard to assignments for pastoral service; the former with the understanding that diaconal service is temporary, and the latter ongoing. Although Serge is correct in stating that �one Deacon is the same as another Deacon� and the Church treats them so, he is inaccurate in saying �so far as his future potential is concerned� as I�ve just explained.

Keheler goes on to say that Vatican II had some �bizarre results� and included three statements which I find are either inaccurate or simply not believable. Under a) he implies that the restoration of the diaconate was the solution to the shortage of priests. I cannot respond to what the bishops and priests �took into their heads.� Nevertheless, this is inaccurate because the shortage of priests actually didn�t start until some five years AFTER Vatican II (calling for the restoration of the permanent diaconate) ended. As far as functioning liturgically, deacons are simply allowed to perform any and all liturgical services they are allowed to in virtue of their non-priestly powers received through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Powers they always had. Although confecting the Eucharist is a priestly power, distributing it can be done by non-priests. For example, even in the early Church, members brought the Eucharist home to give to the bedridden who couldn�t attend Mass. Since in danger of death, anyone � even a lay person � can (and should) baptize, it made sense to allow this function to deacons. In the Western understanding of marriage, the couple is the joint celebrant of the sacrament, the clergy presiding only as the official witness of the Church. Thus, it made sense to allow this function to deacons. Since funeral services other than Mass are not sacraments, it makes sense to allow this function to deacons. The same applies to other liturgical services where sacraments required to be administered by a bishop or priest are not served. Thus, deacons may preside only over the Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage; priests may preside over, in addition to these two, the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, and under certain circumstances, Confirmation; bishops may of course preside over all the Sacraments, including Holy Orders. Under Keheler�s b) I also cannot speak to his statement that �some Bishops went wild trying to insist that the Deacon is not a cleric� and I cannot believe his statements about deacon�s albs and stoles for the following reasons. As to the alb, this is what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, number 336 says, �� Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on.� This exact wording is included in number 122 of the authoritative Instruction, �Redemptionis Sacramentum � On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist� issued by Francis Cardinal Arinze on April 23, 2004 when he was then the head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Neither of these documents speak of any different kinds of stoles for transitional and permanent deacons. Actually, neither document differentiates between the two. I accessed at least two dozen companies that supply liturgical vestments and not a single one was selling either the kind of alb or stole Keheler refers to. So, I�m sorry to say, I simply can�t believe his statements without a reference to particular companies that sell these, if any. As to Keheler�s c), I also cannot believe his story about the deacon not being able to attend Mass in over a year because he was running around serving 14 parishes. One of the commandments of the Church is to attend Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Not to do so is a serious sin. Therefore, I cannot believe that a bishop would intentionally be the cause of one�s serious sin. That�s just too unbelievable. As to the second part, there hasn�t been a such thing as a �Pontifical Mass� since the liturgy was revised 34 years ago. Although the Ceremonial of Bishops requires the assistance of deacons, it plainly states that where none are available, priests � vested as priests � should perform the functions.

X. B!
C. I. X!

Just a note about your delivery, it should have referred to �Father� Serge or �Reverend� Keleher if you don�t mind.

sfo,

First of all, I echo Mykhayl's comment that you are addressing a priest of Christ - Archimandrite Serge Keleher - so be sure to use the respectful, ecclesiastical address to our priests. Saint Francis certainly would have wanted that! I realize that the confusion is his name as listed in the information field on the left. But if you look at the conclusions of his posts, he clearly identifies himself as "Father Serge".

Secondly, you might spend some time reading some of the addresses of the bishops at the Council vis-a-vis the question of a restored diaconate. Very clear references are made to the need for an indigenous, ordained clergy in the missions and the great benefit this would, especially with the expanded permissions to engage in presidential responsibilities (aka - responsibilities of the elders...the presbyterate). Based on my recollection, the only references to the celibacy issue came about as certain bishops were concerned about the admission of married men to the diaconate because it would potentially undermine the celibate presbyterate...after all, married men in Holy Orders? The camel nose under the proverbial tent! Perish the thought!

So although no explicit reference (to my knowledge) is made to the restoration of the diaconate because "we can't ordain married priests", it is everywhere implied since many of the responsibilities assigned to the deacons are presidential...presbyterial.



Rome's loss of a functioning diaconate is one of the least disputed facts in any discussion of the diaconate that I have run across. The diaconate became a staging area for the presbyterate, which, as with most things Latin for several centuries, fulfills the bare minimum requirement without fully realizing the nature of the ministry as a divinely ordained sign. The Deacon is the visible icon of the Bishop's kenotic fatherhood. He is the living catabasis of the Bishop. The Presbyter is the visible icon of the Bishop's kerygmatic and epicletic fatherhood. Both ministries together are the two hands of the Bishop, just as St. Irenaeus refers to the Son and the Spirit in relationship to the Father.

Also, does not its restoration somehow imply its lapse into disuse?



The notion of a "transitional diaconate" distinguishable from a "permanent diaconate" is simply an abuse that developed over time, and was adopted by both East and West in varying degrees (far less so in the East, however). While I personally believe in the ranking of deacons just below presbyters in terms of the hierarchy, I believe that what was to represent an organic development in leadership (moving "up" the ranks of the clergy as one grows in wisdom and experience in ministry and as the needs of the local church require) became simply an exercise in formalism. So Father Serge is correct insofar as potential is concerned. Once a man is ordained to a certain ordo, his potential is defined by the parameters of whatever rank he is given. God's grace is sufficient for the tasks of that day and in one's current state. Should the Bishop call him up to a higher rank, obviously that would change. But one should not confuse "process" with actual "potential".



The benefits for the restoration of the diaconate was discussed mainly in view of the needs of the missions. The results, however, has been a larger number of deacons in established, urban settings.



Again, your points call into question the notion of any "restoration" whatsoever! These duties do not represent the authentic exercise of the ministry of diaconate, but rather reflect delegated presbyterial and presidential responsibilities. IOW, duties for the most part that should only be assigned in very extraordinary circumstances.

Secondly, I contest your view that the deacon is not a priest. He is a priest by virtue of both his baptism and his ordination. The nature of his priesthood, like the Levites of old as distinguished from the Aaronic priesthood, is distinct and ordered to the Bishop's kenotic fatherhood of his congregation. There has developed something of a "diaconal apophaticism" among the Latins that is absolutely perplexing. Deacons are defined often in terms of what they cannot do! The responsibilities mentioned by the Council Fathers in reference to the missions really are extraordinary, but have become "filler" for deacons and many Latin deacons I know complain about how their assigned sacramental responsibilities keep them from realizing their diaconal vocation!

Meanwhile, their proper role liturgically is often denied them. I am referring to offering both the incense, the presentation and preparation of the gifts and the prayers of the faithful. (They are generally permitted to proclaim the Gospel.) The deacon is referred to in early Christian writings as the "eyes and the ears of the bishop". As the Bishop's living catabasis, he is also the animating and guiding principle of the congregation's anabasis or return in worship. He presents the works and needs of the faithful, ascertained during his charitable work with them, in the midst of the assembly to the Bishop, who is the full manifestation of God's loving Fatherhood to the congregation. Thus the ministerial roles within the liturgical assembly should mirror those within other aspects of the common life of the parish. This role could also be restored in the celebration of the other sacramental mysteries, however, with the exception of those you mentioned, no effort to do this has been made since the deacons are assigned a presidential role in their celebration.



Again, it speaks to the confusion about the nature of the diaconate. Some bishops were not sure what deacons were, nor how to properly use deacons. Also, this is where the celibacy issue rears its ugly head again. I recall a class I took in sacramental theology some years back, and the issue of clerical attire came up for deacons. The account was given of a bishop forbidding his deacons to wear clericals especially when out with his family because of the scandal that would give. (!) "He did not want to be a deacon," the professor told us. 'He wanted to be a priest!" Again, Latin obsessions with clerical celibacy and the confusion about the nature of diaconate as an apostolic rank in Holy Orders.

Also, your earlier point about the deacons only having "powers they always had," one wonders what is the point of ordination, then! Clearly the laying on of hands and the calling down of the Holy Spirit should mean more than making him a "supersized layman" or "priest, 2nd class"! Power is indeed given, even if it is not the power to "confect" the Eucharist! Again, the minimalism of certain strains of Latin Catholicism, reducing the celebration of sacramental mysteries to certain canonically defined moments, roles and words, as opposed to ascertaining their full meaning as signs revealed in the whole celebration (as expounded beautifully by the CCC) in the Assembly, gives us an incomplete picture of the ministry and synergies of all ordos within the Assembly (episcopal, presbyterial, diaconal and lay). Both the priest and the deacon act in persona Christi and equally in persona Ecclesia, as well as in the name of the Bishop!

Bottom line? I think the idea of the "restoration" of the diaconate, while praiseworthy in its intent, has been somewhat problematic in its implementation.

God bless!

In ICXC,

Gordo, sfo

I also forgot to point out two things:

1. Many aspects of the ministry of deacon have been inappropriately assigned to the laity, especially when a deacon is present. This includes offering the "Prayers of the Faithful".

2. Another key ministry is the distribution of Holy Communion. As with the Prayers of the Faithful, the rampant use of laity as "Extraordinary Ministers" is another way some Latin parishes make diaconal ministry in the liturgy seem almost superfluous.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo--

I would also add that "transitional" deacons seem to be thought of and treated as priests already by most folks, while "permanent" deacons still seem to be treated and thought of as laity, not as the clerics that they are.

John

Gordo, excellent posts, I must say. Unfortunately with decreasing presbyteral clergy even Eastern Catholic deacons are sometimes called on to take "presiding" duties, sometimes on a regular basis. We need to be careful to respect and preserve our unique and ancient sense of diakonia.

ByzTx, which "eparchial people" are you referring to, by chance? A member of one of our mission communities is currently taking it, and he loves it.

It is a shame that these men are not given the opportunity to develop a diaconal identity, both within themselves and in the common life of the community.

Not to mention the fact that they may even discern that the diaconate is their true vocation, not presbyterate!

God bless,

Gordo

FDD,

Thank you for your comments. I think your point illustrates that the ministry a deacon exercises in mission situations is, while common practice and praiseworthy given the needs of the congregation, still extraordinary. The problem with the Latins is that those responsibilities are regarded as ordinary, albeit delegated by the pastor or bishop.

God bless you in your ministry!

Gordo

I would first like to respond with two general comments: Thank you for taking the time to write such an insightful response. Also, I agree that I deserved a "hit" for not recognizing Fr. Keleher to be a priest, for which he certainly should be respected. I certainly intended no dispect.

To start out with, what particular words mean in many cases has always been the cause of confusion and controversy, even among those who speak the same language. That being said, I understand the term "presidential" not necessarily meaning "presbyteral" in the strict sense of ordained priesthood. It simply refers to presiding over, or leading. For example, an abbess may preside over a non-sacramental liturgical service in the monastery without any illusion of serving in a (in the strict sense) presbyteral role. Each member of the Church may preside over any (other than certain sacramental) liturgical service to the extent that they share in the universal priesthood of Christ through, as you correctly point out, their baptism, . We commonly refer to this as 'priesthood' with a little "p" as opposed to 'Priesthood' with a capital "P" which comes with ordination as a priest. It's this (Western perhaps) understanding of 'p' that lay people can baptize someone in danger of death if no priest or deacon is available, couples marry each other, and that they can impart certain blessings (such as to their children), and perform many duties unheard of when I was growing up. Holy Orders, like all sacraments, bestows particular kinds of graces (and for lack of a more precise definition) "powers" to those who are ordained clergy, to share in certain, but not all, faculties of the bishop. Or, a very simple way to look at it is, lay people can "do" 1; deacons can "do" 1 and 2; priests can "do" 1,2, and 3; but only bishops can "do" 1,2,3 and 4. I'm using this analogy only to keep this to a very simple reference to where deacons stand in the contemporary Church. Yes, the role of the deacon in the Latin rite is clouded. But so too is that of lay people. In fact, the Vatican had to issue a directive on exactly what roles lay people could fill to correct some abuses (some were probably doing 1.5). Getting back to deacons, one downside of not having a 'permanent' rank of functioning deacons was the priests pretty much doing everything. From what I've read, apparently some liked it that way and had a hard time adjusting to deacons and laity having particular liturgical roles. They simple didn't want to give up their 'status' of being the only one who could do 1,2, and 3 or had what we can call a "clerical identity crisis." Perhaps those priests who "deny" deacons their proper liturgical functions and those bishops who are confused about the role of deacons -- as you mention in your post -- (and those who have not yet restored the permanent diaconate in their dioceses) come from this group. On the other extreme, there are those priests and bishops who, for whatever reason, go overboard in 'empowering' deacons (and often the laity) to perform liturgical and pastoral roles even when not necessary. Frankly, I've seen this very commonly, as opposed to a denial to deacons (or laity) to perform their allowed roles. Case in point, I have commonly seen permanent deacons often 'preside' over baptisms and wake services and very often visit the elderly and sick at home and in hospitals and nursing homes, and be involved in sacramental training programs. Granted, this is usually done in a 'sharing responsibility' setting, but it does make one wonder if these priests only want to do "3" and leave the laity to do "1" and the deacons "1 and "2" so they can do other things. This was pretty much the point I attempted to make in pointing out a deacon's 'potential.' I suspect a pastor would (knowing a transitional deacon's parish presence is only temporary) assign him different duties than he would a permanent deacon with a long-term assignment.

I guess I've beaten the subject to death and will go no further. In summary, let's just say that the current roles of deacons -- as well as laity, and yes, even priests -- in the Western Church at least, is often still not clearly understood. This is probably why often deacons are defined -- as you point out -- by what they can't do rather than can, and why the Vatican had to issue norms on the proper function of the laity, and in other cases we see deacons as what some people would call a "mini priest." We have to keep in mind though, that it may take another generation or two until things settle down and all this can be put into a nice, neat box.

One last thing... you are astutely correct about St. Francis.

I am not about to attempt to respond to sfo's flood of verbiage. So I shall offer only two comments:

a) my friend with the fourteen parishes and no Sunday Liturgy was a deacon (later a married priest - shudder to your heart's content) of the Eparchy of Edmonton and Alberta. He is my source; you may verify it with the eparchy if you so desire. And, by the way, obedience to the bishop takes precedence over other ecclesiastical obligations. Had he refused to obey the bishop, His Grace would probably have told him not to serve at all until he learned this basic precept.

b) sartorial detail: the differences are quite simple. The "permanent deacon's
alb" (only required in some dioceses) has the collar cut in such a way as to make the deacon's necktie visible to the assembled multitude - God forbid that he should look as though he were wearing a "clergy collar". And the "permanent deacon's stole" is cut so as to lie flat on his shoulder - the "transitional deacon's stole" is cut so that once the deacon has "transited" to the presbyterate he can still use the stole in question without a bubble in the middle of his neck (or just below the neck depending on how he likes to wear his stole).

Advice: can the verbiage and look beyond Georgia!

Fr. Serge

John,

Perhaps this situation will not change until the parallel structures by which some men "study for the priesthood" while others "study for the diaconate" are changed.

While having a period of up to a year to serve the Church as a "transitional" deacon is certainly preferable to the old system in which one was seldom an ordained deacon (i.e. before being ordained to the presbyterate) for more than a week, it still fails to reflect adequately either the uniqueness of the diaconate or its continuity with the presbyterate.

Then again, I'm not sure it would work to have all candidates stop at the diaconate until they are called to take the next step, without any presuppositions as to whether or not they will.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father Deacon Richard,

Christ is Ascended!

I believe another key factor to consider is the need of the church/assembly, including the broader diocese or eparchy. In certain situations, priests are so desperately needed as laborers in the vineyard, the period of service in the diaconate can and should be shortened especially since all ordos are ordered to the good of the congregation. Charisms are given for the building up of the body, and the body can only survive with difficulty in the face of a shortage of presbyters.

But to my mind this should not be the norm, only the exception in the face of pastoral and missionary needs.

God bless,

Gordo

In Pennsylvania, we had two diaconal candidates in my KofC council, one RC, one BC, at roughly the same stage of formation. They were ordained within months of each other.

Some of the differences in episcopal attitude were amazing.

The RC deacon was forbidden by his bishop from wearing clerical attire outside of liturgical setting. The BC deacon was required by his bishop to wear his collar at all church-related events--including the KofC meetings. [As a side issue, there's a problem in the KofC with recognizing that deacons are clergy; the national bylaws require the at our chaplains be priests; we have an increasing number of states each year passing resolutions to change this to allow deacons {the bylaw predates the diaconal restoration}\].


??? And just where is the problem here? These are *very* proper functions of deacons as clergy! They're not a "priest substitute" or second class clergy; they are fully ordained clergy; such roles are properly theirs. The problem with a "sharing responsibility" notion is not that the deacons are doing it, but the notion that the deacon should not be doing this in his own right.

hawk

What is far worse is what is occurring in California.

Some R.C. Eucharistic ministers, usually women, are allowed to preach and to celebrate a priest-less ceremony (like a typica) and then distribute holy communion to those present when there are no priests around, especially in priestless parishes.

In some parishes, where they have Eucharistic Ministers and Deacons, the women Eucharistic Ministers have priority over the Deacons. The deacons are not allowed to serve at these "reader services," but the women do. In fact, the women are appointed as Administrators over the Parish, not the Deacons.

In the Diocese of Richmond where I grew up, the former Bishop, Walter Sullivan, refused for the longest time to ordain deacons because women could not be ordained. Of course, given his less than traditional leanings for which he was called on the carpet by Rome, his vocations to the priesthood were very, very low as compared to other dioceses.

Lay women and nuns ran everything. I referred to them as "Sister Wanda. B. Priest".

Thank goodness he is now retired and the new Bishop is a good one. Many of these abuses have been checked, but it will take a long time for the diocese to recover from the absence of a strong father figure.

The problem is that the Latins have absolutized the value of celibacy and the presbyterate to such an extent that men who would be marvelous spiritual fathers and pastors are not considered for priestly ministry because they are married. St. Paul's exhortation to St. Timothy reflects not only his own - but the Holy Spirit's revealed wisdom in this matter: pick men for sacerdotal and diaconal ministry based on the witness of their family life. Use their fathering of their domestic churches as indicators of their worthiness for ministry. It is one of the reasons that I personally favor:

1. Ordaining married men to the presbyterate, as we do in the East.

2. Ordaining married men who have been married for at least 7 years and are above the age of 40.

Just some food for thought...

Gordo

Hi,

I need to comment that we've had the blessing to receive in our parishes a few so-called "transitional" deacons over the years and they are in no way segregated from the so-called "permanent" deacons.

At least in our parishes, a deacon is a deacon. Albs are shared by deacons and priests alike. Since the stoles are different, it is not practical to share stoles between deacons and priests, but the priests share their stoles and the deacons their stoles. Something similar happens with chasubles for priests and dalmatics for deacons.

More important than vestments, the roles of the deacons in the liturgy and other aspects of the life of the parish are the same whether you are a deacon because you are called to be a deacon, or if you are a deacon because you are called to be a priest. What ever you are called to be, right now you are a deacon.

Shalom,
Memo

Actually a Latin stole can be used by either a deacon or a priest. If a deacon is using it, he does well to have a small double clasp so that the stole can be worn hanging from one shoulder across the breast and the back in the manner of a Latin deacon.

Fr. Serge

Father,

Yes, I agree. There are some garments that could possibly be used as presbyterial stoles as well as diaconal stoles.

However, the ones used in our parishes are tailored for their specific use and would just look wrong if used for other purposes.

The point I was trying to make was that all deacons pick their vestments from the same closet. Married, single, transitional, permanent, whatever and whatever else, a deacon is a deacon.

A deacon may (or may not) later become a priest or, for that matter, a deacon may later become the Bishop of Rome. Right now, he is a deacon.

Shalom,
Memo