www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Eastern Catholic Lay Ministers.

Dear friends,
Christ is among us!
Let me first say that, except for an emergency, there is really no reason for a Layperson to distribute the Holy Mysteries in a Byzantine Church (either Catholic or Orthodox). The only reason that is even discussed is that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches did make such a prospect possible. The Pittsburgh Metropolia tried to ignore those Canons, but Rome insisted that they set a standard within their Metropolia. They then set the standard in such a way that one could not canonically have a "Lay Eucharistic Minister" in any parish. Alas the Warren, OH parish of SS. Peter & Paul have the Benedictine Nuns assist in distribution. But that has to be the most Latinized parish in the Metropolia.
Since Deacons are ordained at the altar and ancient practice points out Deacons are to assist in Eucharistic distribution, as the need warrents.

Sundeacons are members of the clergy, therefore they are not lay people! They may be ordained by a Bishop or his designate for serve outside the altar, but they are clergy. I believe that economia would permit their use for Communion Distribution, if the need requires.

Every Sunday I distribute Communion to over 100 people, and as long as I am able I will continue to distribute Communion at the Liturgy alone. But I do not think it would be a bad idea to permit the deacon and subdeacon to bring Communion weekly to the shut-in.
Fr. Vladimir

I am not sure we have much differenc in theory between the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholic traditions. In Orthodoxy, priests (and bishops) are the the only normative (Latins would say "ordinary") distributors of the Eucharist (a further solid Orthodox liturgical principle would be that not just a priest, but the priest who offers the Eucharist. The Latin practice of priests arriving from the rectory to distribute is another topic).

Economia give us allowances. While no definative Orthodox position exists as to how to apply economy, it would seem self-evident that a deacon would be prefered before a subdeacon, a subdeacon before a reader, etc. etc. I have never witnessed a need to employ this economy so it seems a theorhetical point, in my experience.

The Byzantine Catholics, as I understand from those here, has almost the same practice except deacons are allowed as ordinary ministers (is that right?). The BCC accept the theory (as the Latins employ the practice) that extraordinary or ecomonia ministers are possible, giving first preference to subdeacons (the eastern term) or EEM (the Latin term) and then following as with us Orthodox (eastern readers or latin lectors, etc. etc.)

It is true that in the Catholic Church (Latin and Greek) subdeacons were/are canonically clergy though not sacramentally clergy. This, in large part, is the reason the latin Church abolished the minsitry/office/order of subdeacon, in that it had bad historical connotations, often used to grant a clercial benefice to a lay person. To control or eliminate this abuse, the latin church first altered the subdiaconate from a ministry to a step in the priestly ordination process (as, with later regret, they did to the diaconate), and at times and places even supressed this minimalized office by moving priestly candidates from one order to another in the same ceremony or on that same day or subsequent days.

OOOOOOOOO, way to much history here. i don't mean to bore people.

Axios

Axios,

I must again state deacons have been and are ordinary distributers of the Eucharist, East and West. The decline in the order itself, combined with infrequent Communion and distribution by intinction in the East and by the species of bread alone in the West eliminated the need of the deacon to administer the chalice. This seems to have led to the presbyterization of the distribution of the Gifts.

Some Orthodox Churches seem not to have forgotten deacons can distribute the Holy Gifts and allow them to do so when needed. As I stated before, in Greece they do this on the main Holy Days due to the large number of communicants. The Antiochians allow the same, as well as allowing deacons to serve the Typika. The Ukrainian Catholics in Canada have authorized this as well. The Ruthenian Metropolia is going to do likewise.

The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states quite strongly the Eastern practice of minor orders is to continue and those ordained as such are no longer laymen but clerics. I post our own Canon on this:

Canon 327

�1. Men who are properly prepared can be ordained to the offices of acolyte, lector cantor and subdeacon, who are minor clerics.

�2. Minor clerics will be governed by proper statute issued by competent authority.


Quite the opposite of what the Latin Church has done, although I believe we will see a change in their practice and the ministries of acolyte and lector raised agian to minor orders. I would also note that the Latin subdiaconate was abolished as a major order (which it was considered from Trent till Vatican II) and it's duties assigned to the ministries of acolyte and lector. Also, acolytes can be called subdeacons. The following is from Pope Paul VI's motu proprio on the minor orders:

"4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops" (Ministeria Quaedam).

The Eastern subdeacon is analogous with the Latin acolyte not an extraordinary eucharistic minister. In the Latin Church priests and deacons are ordinary and normative ministers of the Eucharist. Acolytes are extraordinary but normative. EEM's are both extraordinary and exceptional. They are only to be used in cases of true need. Unfortunately, they are more often employed for convenience rather than true need. The Latin Church, at least their Canon Law, prefers acolytes be used for this purpose if the true need is experienced with regularity. However, most Latin bishops seem unwilling to install men as acolytes because it would eliminate the need for EEMs and therefore eliminate the need for women to perform this role and we all know what a tragedy that would be. :rolleyes:

Our Metropolia also addressed EEMs in our particular Canon Law, (mainly becasue of our aging priesthood I believe) Here is the relevant canon:

Canon 709 �2

�l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

�2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

1�. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.

2�. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum.

3�. Those persons may take communion to those who, by reason of illness, infirmity or age, cannot attend the Divine Liturgy regularly.

4�. If any priest or deacon is present at the Liturgy, in any capacity whatever, he is to make himself known to the principal celebrant and shall distribute the divine Eucharist, vested insofar as possible, and taking precedence over any minor cleric or lay person present.

Clearly the use of deacons or minor clerics is preferred. However, I do not agree with Fr. Vladimir's statement: "They then set the standard in such a way that one could not canonically have a 'Lay Eucharistic Minister' in any parish." The Canons clearly state each parish is entitled to have at least one. Although I don't think many of our parishes would be entitled to a second based on the criteria. I don't think many of our parishes have much more than 75 communicants at a given Liturgy.

The Canon is a little vague however. Is the intent of the Canon to say you have to have at least 150 communicants to justify using an EEM. Or is it simply saying the priest can always employ one if he desires but would need at least 225 communicants to justify a second. I can see the wisdom in allowing each parish one to help with sick calls, yet I do not want to see EEM mania as some Latin parishes have either. Unforunately, Warren and Johnstown have employed EEMs long before it was legislated and use them whether needed or not I have heard. I think the best way to go is have one subdeacon per parish. This is what the Maronites encourage.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,

From my understanding, your historical reference are not inaccurate and the preferences you express in your close, I am sure are valid preferences.

I think the only outstanding point is while, yes in the Catholic Church, east and west, deacons are and have been ordianry ministers of the eucharist, this cannot be wholely transfer to Eastern Orthodoxy. "Ordinary minister" is a phrase developed by the Catholic Church, not ours. But the concept is present in Orthodoxy, even if we use different language. In oru tradition, however, the priest and not the deacon has this ministry.

Yes, searching back in history one can find in some locales deacons commonly and regularly distributing communion, generally, as you allude, from the chalice. But to reach the era of such practices, one is going back far before the development of most of Orthodox tradition and very close to the slightly earlier period where lay distribution was common.

You are correct that deacons today in some locales distribute when absolutely needed. Again this is a practice of economy, not in essense different than the Latin practice of EEM.

While it is certainly artifical to impose on Orthodoxy both the Catholic concept of ordianry/extraordinary ministers as well as Catholic scholastic and didatic constructs, we might say that both Catholicism (East & West) and Orthodoxy have a "bright line" for eucharistic ministry, closely similiar only that Catholics and Orthodox have deacons on opposite sides of that broght line, though neither communion cosnidering it a signficant point of division betweent he communions. Both traditions also then have a concept of either extraordinary or economia in whcih, according to a table of precedence, others can perform this ministry. Much more elaboration than this is not proper for an ecumencial dialogue, as it is really down to minor matters of internal order of the respect communions or even of particualr communties within.

Orthodoxy specuates less than Catholicism on possibilities absent an actual need and then limits the discussion to the particular situation not general or universal norms. Needless to say, an Orthodox priest celebrating in a distant and isolated convent, phyiscally unable to distribute, would allow the superior or, in her absense, the senior nun to do so. However, we would not create a canon about this, nor would we (as we might unfairly stereotype some Catholics at asking) "would that be the senior nun by age or by monastic life, or life in that particular convent?")

Axios


P.S. back on the minor orders as clergy matter. I totally udnerstand the Catholic practice of making some person legally/canonically clergy. However, I think that must be seen as an act that is less alike making them sacramentally clergy, as it would making them eligible to participate in the "Clergy Health Insurance and Pension Plan" (to put it in modern terms!!)

Axios - I have seen deacons distribute in three different Orthodox jurisdictions over the last 15 years. I just don't get it (your posts). Orthodox practice that I have observed would seem to parallel Greek Catholic in this regard.

Fr. Vladimir, bless!...thanks for a very enlightining post. The practice of being blessed by the bishop for a paticular function (later refined into "minor order") is ancient and patristic. These so blessed are no longer simply laity but "set aside". I knew when Vladyka Michael Wiwchar laid hands on me and prayed over me at my subdiaconal ordination, it wasn't just another day in the life. Lance, thanks for the quotes from the Instruction. It's pretty clear from Canon 327 in the CCEO that each church sui juris is to develop its own particular law governing minor clerics.

I quote from the Pastoral Guide of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the USA, which has the force of particular law in the USA: Article 315 - "The ordinary distributor of the Divine Gifts is the priest. The Deacon is extra-ordinary distributor of the Divine Gifts by virtue of his office."

Christ is Risen!

I can only speak from the Russian and Traditional (church calendar) Greek practice where only the priest distributes Holy Mysteries. Again only those priests who have served at the Liturgy may distribute the Holy Mysteries to the faithful. The only other time is during the Presanctified Vesperial Liturgy and when visiting the sick.

I don't know which Orthodox jurisdictions allow deacons to do this. May be these are Orthodox jurisdictions that have received Greek Catholics as clergy? As I understand it the celebrant priest represents the bishop who is an icon of Christ in the Liturgy. The deacon does not represent Christ, he represents the angelic orders. There are stories about angels communing people, but I don't think this logic applies here!

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

www.pokrov.com [pokrov.com]

Diak,

One of the reasons the practice of how the Eucharist is distributed is never a matter of concern in Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue is likely as you say. Our distinctions in practice are not significantly different. Yes, I am sure you have seen the use of extraordianry eucharistic ministers in Orthodox churches, as I have in Catholic churches. Yes, the priest (and in Orthodoxy, properly the rector of the parish serving the Liturgy) is ordinary distributor (to use a Eastern & Western Catholic term).

I am now confused if Catholicism cosndieres deacons ordinary distributors or extraordinary. But, as this is a non-issue in ecumencial dialogue, it is not an important issue).

Certainly, I personally view it as a positive develop to "re-imagine"(would that be the best term?) the minor orders into true ministries -- which they certainly were not in the pre-VCII Catholic Church nor in much of Orthodoxy.

Axios

I was reading a chronicle some time ago about a liturgy in the Great Church in Constantinople (Hagia Sophia) after the restoration of the icons and it listed the number of presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, cantors, and acolytes all separately - it seems interestingly enough that there was some historical distinction and acknowledgement of such roles in the Great Church.

Yes. It seems at that time these were true ministries and not just canonical states or stepping stones towards priestly ordination. It seems an attempt to go back to this tradition is slowly taken place, encouraged by the reforms of VCII in Catholic Church and pastoral need in Orthodoxy.

Axios

Starting during the Archbishop Dolinay episcopacy in 1990's and continued to be permitted
by Metropolitan Judson, highly latinized parishes such as Johnstown Pa, Clairton Pa, Monessen Pa had up to as many as 5 to 10 so-called "eurcharistic ministers" (dressed in Roman Catholic Albs)per parish. This practice is still going on in the Pittburgh Archeparchy.

Ung-Certez

Are they still wearing Latin-style albs? Holy Latinization, Batman!

Dear Friends,

Yes, the subdeacon is a member of the clergy, as evidenced by the fact that if a celibate is ordained a subdeacon, he is no longer free to be married.

Our UC parishes have such an abundance of priests, that I have yet to see a Deacon distribute Holy Communion to the faithful, although I have seen one bring the Holy Gifts to the sick.

The Latin Eucharistic Lay Ministers, however, were introduced "out West" not to serve as extra assistance to priests during long Communion line-ups, but primarily to be a semi-clerical presence in the many Latin parishes that no longer have their own parish priests.

There is a tendency among some of us Eastern Cath'lics to see a practice develop in the West and then try to have our parishes adopt it without understanding the particular reasons and conditions for its use in the West.

I've seen this happen with other practices in my Church and it seems to come from a "the Latin Catholics have it, we're Catholics too, so we should have it" attitude.

Not a good thing.

Alex

To be honest, I don't care you administers Communion as long as I get to receive. If the Canons allow it and my bishop allows it and my parish priest thinks it is necessary, that is good enough for me. Where the celebration and administration of the Sacrments are concerned those are the only opinions which matter to me. Moe

Dear Moe,

Yes, exactly.

The Eastern Churches haven't had to face quite the same kind of pastoral issues the Latin Church has had to in recent years.

Ultimately, this is a pastoral matter and the Churches must deal with it as best they can.

I know one Extra Eucharistic Minister I am especially fond of.

She's a real Angel in more ways than one!

Alex

<Blushing> <blushing>