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