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

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