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

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