Bi-Ritual Deacons

[Mattapoisett64]

I know there’s at least one bi-ritual deacon here, possibly several. (And no, this isn’t to re-ignite the discussion about whether the correct technical term is “bi-ritual” or not.)

I’d be interested in hearing about the motivations, rewards, and possible downsides of being a bi-ritual Latin/xxx deacon. Since, as I understand it, Eastern deacons have a smaller sacramental role (don’t baptize, don’t officiate at non-Mass weddings), I wonder if that aspect is frustrating. To what degree do the different theological approaches (ex: what I understand the greater Eastern appreciation for “mystery” and the role of the Spirit) enrich the “other side” in ministerial practice?

My specific interest would be bi-ritual Latin/Maronite, but would be interested in hearing from any deacon with a bi-ritual ministry.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since, as I understand it, Eastern deacons have a smaller sacramental role (don’t baptize, don’t officiate at non-Mass weddings),

**But Byzantine deacons have a bigger liturgical role. At a full blown Pontifical liturgy, priests do very little after the Gospel.

Actually, two of the deacon’s classic liturgical functions, namely leading the prayers of the faithful and helping distribute communion, have been usurped by laymen in the Latin rite.**

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Since, as I understand it, Eastern deacons have a smaller sacramental role (don’t baptize, don’t officiate at non-Mass weddings),

**But Byzantine deacons have a bigger liturgical role. At a full blown Pontifical liturgy, priests do very little after the Gospel.

Actually, two of the deacon’s classic liturgical functions, namely leading the prayers of the faithful and helping distribute communion, have been usurped by laymen in the Latin rite.**

Meaning no particular disrespect, but your answer is responsive to my question how? I cited specifically a sacramental role, not a liturgical one – begging the question of how common a “full blown Pontifical liturgy” might even be. Similarly, it isn’t clear to me that laymen have in fact “usurped” the two functions you mentioned as I commonly see Latin deacons do both.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Similarly, it isn’t clear to me that laymen have in fact “usurped” the two functions you mentioned as I commonly see Latin deacons do both.

My point is that these are historically functions of the deacon.

 

[Aramis]

Meaning no particular disrespect, but your answer is responsive to my question how? I cited specifically a sacramental role, not a liturgical one – begging the question of how common a “full blown Pontifical liturgy” might even be. Similarly, it isn’t clear to me that laymen have in fact “usurped” the two functions you mentioned as I commonly see Latin deacons do both.

The term Pontifical is really a misnomer; it’s more commonly referred to a Hierarchical Divine Liturgy. It is not uncommon in byzantine use. Some bishops do the HDL weekly.

The sacramental role of the deacon in the Byzantine church IS LITURGICAL. The Byzantine deacon may preach, distributes communion, and proclaims the Gospel, as well as leads most of the litanies, provides instruction to the laity on posture, and consumes the remainder of the Eucharist in the Chalice after the general communion.

Aside from not being ordinary ministers of marriage nor baptism, their extra-liturgical roles are much the same as their Roman counterparts… counseling, catechesis, marriage prep, baptismal prep, parish administration, and ministry to the homebound or imprisoned.

Note that Byzantine deacons do not perform the crowning in marriage; they may serve as clerical witness to a mixed marriage in extremis when that wedding is performed in an Orthodox parish.

The reason for not being ministers of Baptism in the east is simple: Baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation (Confirmation), even for infants. While Roman pastors may only Chrismate on Easter as an extraordinary minister (Bishops re the ordinary minister in the Roman church), in the East, Pastors chrismate as the ordinary minister of chrismation.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I know there’s at least one bi-ritual deacon here, possibly several. (And no, this isn’t to re-ignite the discussion about whether the correct technical term is “bi-ritual” or not.)

I’d be interested in hearing about the motivations, rewards, and possible downsides of being a bi-ritual Latin/xxx deacon. Since, as I understand it, Eastern deacons have a smaller sacramental role (don’t baptize, don’t officiate at non-Mass weddings), I wonder if that aspect is frustrating. To what degree do the different theological approaches (ex: what I understand the greater Eastern appreciation for “mystery” and the role of the Spirit) enrich the “other side” in ministerial practice?

Well, I’m bi-ritual (Latin/Melkite) and it’s certainly true that I don’t baptized, don’t marry and don’t give blessings in the Melkite Church. Nevertheless, I serve there because that’s where God has placed me. I love the people, I love the liturgies (not just the Divine Liturgy but all the liturgies). I am blessed to be able to be fed by both East and West on a regular basis.

The spirituality of the East and the West are certainly different, but complementary. While mystery has a great role in presenting some aspects of God it is equally true that the Western philosophical approach to God also brings aspects of His presence to the forefront.

For me it’s not an either/or deal – it’s a both/and – which is precisely what we found in the early Church.

My specific interest would be bi-ritual Latin/Maronite, but would be interested in hearing from any deacon with a bi-ritual ministry.

Sorry, I don’t know of any bi-ritual Latin/Maronite deacons on the West Coast (there may be some, but I don’t know of any).

Deacon Ed

 

[Formosus]

From what I have heard, there is no such legal term as “bi ritual deacons”, in that Deacons do not need to seek permission to perform diaconal roles within the Liturgy outside of their own particular church. Correct me if I am wrong Deacon Ed.

 

[malphono]

The sacramental role of the deacon in the Byzantine church IS LITURGICAL. The Byzantine deacon may preach, distributes communion, and proclaims the Gospel, as well as leads most of the litanies, provides instruction to the laity on posture, and consumes the remainder of the Eucharist in the Chalice after the general communion.

Aside from not being ordinary ministers of marriage nor baptism, their extra-liturgical roles are much the same as their Roman counterparts… counseling, catechesis, marriage prep, baptismal prep, parish administration, and ministry to the homebound or imprisoned.

Note that Byzantine deacons do not perform the crowning in marriage; they may serve as clerical witness to a mixed marriage in extremis when that wedding is performed in an Orthodox parish.

The reason for not being ministers of Baptism in the east is simple: Baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation (Confirmation), even for infants. While Roman pastors may only Chrismate on Easter as an extraordinary minister (Bishops re the ordinary minister in the Roman church), in the East, Pastors chrismate as the ordinary minister of chrismation.

The same basic principles apply to deacons in the Maronite and Syriac Churches as well. It is, though, rather sad that the “revised” Maronite liturgical books, have suppressed almost all of the diaconal proclamations during the Qourbono (DL).

**
Actually, two of the deacon’s classic liturgical functions, namely leading the prayers of the faithful and helping distribute communion, have been usurped by laymen in the Latin rite.

It is certainly true that in the Latin rite, for all the post-conciliar hoopla about the restoration of the permanent Diaconate, the liturgical role of the deacon in the OF (“ordinary form”) was all but obliterated, which really doesn’t make much sense. (The liturgical role of the deacon in the EF (“extraordinary form”) remains as it always was.)

In any case, it seems to me the term “usurped” is not correct here. The verb “to usurp” means “to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right” but laymen did not take on the diaconal prerogatives on their own. They were empowered (yea, even encouraged) to do so (for whatever reason) by the post-conciliar Church. Perhaps it would be better said “two of the deacon’s classic liturgical functions, … have been shifted to laymen in the Latin rite.”

 

[Pani_Rose]

From what I have heard, there is no such legal term as “bi ritual deacons”, in that Deacons do not need to seek permission to perform diaconal roles within the Liturgy outside of their own particular church. Correct me if I am wrong Deacon Ed.

My husband is a Ruthenian Deacon serving a Melkite parish, and yes permission is needed.

 

[Formosus]

Ah , Thank you for your correction : )

 

[Deacon_Ed]

From what I have heard, there is no such legal term as “bi ritual deacons”, in that Deacons do not need to seek permission to perform diaconal roles within the Liturgy outside of their own particular church. Correct me if I am wrong Deacon Ed.

Well, you’re sort of right and sort of wrong. A deacon may assist in any Catholic church with the permission of the pastor. However, if he wishes to have a long-term assignment and wear the vestments of the sui iuris Church then he needs the permission of both the bishop of that Church and his own bishop. This is what it means to be bi-ritual for a deacon. A priest, on the other hand, requires permission from Rome.

Deacon Ed

 

[Aramis]

Well, you’re sort of right and sort of wrong. A deacon may assist in any Catholic church with the permission of the pastor. However, if he wishes to have a long-term assignment and wear the vestments of the sui iuris Church then he needs the permission of both the bishop of that Church and his own bishop. This is what it means to be bi-ritual for a deacon. A priest, on the other hand, requires permission from Rome.

Deacon Ed

Father Deacon Ed: references to the relevant rubrics, please…

My dad could use them…