Bishops and Priest serving as a Deacon

[ConstantineTG]

I’m wondering how this development happened in the Latin Rite where bishops or priests will serve as Deacons, or even anything but bishops and priests. I think this happens in the Extraordinary Form more as there is little or no way for concelebration.

I’m wondering because in the Byzantine Rite (both Catholic and Orthodox), bishops and priests would never vest as anything but bishops and priests and will never serve in a Liturgy as anything but bishops and priest. If there is no deacon then they will say the prayers that are said by the deacon, but they will not do the actions of a deacon, like reading the prayers outside of the iconostas. They just remain where they usually are, at the table.

Anybody has information on how this came to be?

 

[Nicea325]

I’m wondering how this development happened in the Latin Rite where bishops or priests will serve as Deacons, or even anything but bishops and priests. I think this happens in the Extraordinary Form more as there is little or no way for concelebration.

I’m wondering because in the Byzantine Rite (both Catholic and Orthodox), bishops and priests would never vest as anything but bishops and priests and will never serve in a Liturgy as anything but bishops and priest. If there is no deacon then they will say the prayers that are said by the deacon, but they will not do the actions of a deacon, like reading the prayers outside of the iconostas. They just remain where they usually are, at the table.

Anybody has information on how this came to be?

 

[zab]

I’m wondering how this development happened in the Latin Rite where bishops or priests will serve as Deacons, or even anything but bishops and priests. I think this happens in the Extraordinary Form more as there is little or no way for concelebration.

I’m wondering because in the Byzantine Rite (both Catholic and Orthodox), bishops and priests would never vest as anything but bishops and priests and will never serve in a Liturgy as anything but bishops and priest. If there is no deacon then they will say the prayers that are said by the deacon, but they will not do the actions of a deacon, like reading the prayers outside of the iconostas. They just remain where they usually are, at the table.

Anybody has information on how this came to be?

"May priests vest and function as deacons and sub-deacons?
In smaller parishes it is difficult to celebrate Solemn Mass due to the scarcity of priests. Thus, Solemn Mass is often served by three priests, who function as Priest, Deacon and Sub-deacon, wearing the vestments of Priest, Deacon, Sub-deacon. This is not “role playing” as some might imagine. One who is ordained to a higher order does not forfeit the lower orders he has received. Recall that a Bishop wears the dalmatic under his chasuble when celebrating Mass." sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html

 

[L_Marshall]

"May priests vest and function as deacons and sub-deacons?
In smaller parishes it is difficult to celebrate Solemn Mass due to the scarcity of priests. Thus, Solemn Mass is often served by three priests, who function as Priest, Deacon and Sub-deacon, wearing the vestments of Priest, Deacon, Sub-deacon. This is not “role playing” as some might imagine. One who is ordained to a higher order does not forfeit the lower orders he has received. Recall that a Bishop wears the dalmatic under his chasuble when celebrating Mass." sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html

This pretty much hit it on the head.

Remembering that there were no permanent Deacons or Subdeacons for many years in the Western Church, and that these were only conferred to men who were scheduled to be ordained priests, there was a bit of a problem. Since men were only in the subdiaconate and the diaconate for a year or two, there was usually an excess of priests, and a lack of deacons and subdeacons. Priests, who held the office of subdeacon and deacon (as well as that of a priest), were able to serve it.

As a side note, this still happens today. Below is a picture of this year’s Palm Sunday procession. You can see that two Cardinal-deacons (both holding the office of bishop) vested as deacons to serve the Mass. They wear the dalmatic to show they serve as deacons, but they still retain use of the mitre, because they hold the office of bishop.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m wondering how this development happened in the Latin Rite where bishops or priests will serve as Deacons, or even anything but bishops and priests. I think this happens in the Extraordinary Form more as there is little or no way for concelebration.

I’m wondering because in the Byzantine Rite (both Catholic and Orthodox), bishops and priests would never vest as anything but bishops and priests and will never serve in a Liturgy as anything but bishops and priest. If there is no deacon then they will say the prayers that are said by the deacon, but they will not do the actions of a deacon, like reading the prayers outside of the iconostas. They just remain where they usually are, at the table.

Anybody has information on how this came to be?

Probably it developed because, in parishes, there were no deacons and subdeacons usually available. Often, there still aren’t. Solemn Mass and other liturgies require these, and all priests have received these orders (or ministries as in the case of Subdeacon: this does not exist outside of societies like the FSSP and ICRSS, but for all intents and purposes priests other than these still receive these duties when they receive the Acolyte and Lector), so this is what is done. It has nothing to do with concelebration. Concelebration is a way to facilitate just that, concelebration. Deacons and subdeacons at Solemn Mass in the EF do not concelebrate. Concelebration in the West was conceived as something else.

I believe in the Ceremonial of Bishops (OF) it says that priests may do the duties of deacons, but should not vest as deacons. This, of course, does not hold for the EF. I understand the “spirit,” and if there is a deacon available then of course it is better for him to take up this role, and is also his right, but if one is not available (same with a subdeacon), then I see no reason why not to have a Solemn Mass if you have a perfectly fine priest available to perform this ministry.

Now, as far as actions are concerned, there really isn’t a lot of action to be replaced. A deacon reads the Gospel and General Intercessions (OF only), and assists at the altar with some parts. He also does the Pax rite. All of these things can be done by another priest or, in the case of assisting at the altar, by a server or the MC.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m wondering more about the vesting than doing the parts. In the East a priest certainly does the parts of a deacon if none is present, but he doesn’t act like a deacon, like stand where the deacon stands or carry some functions in a way a deacon only does. Most definitely he will never vest as a deacon does.

 

[UncleBill]

I’m wondering more about the vesting than doing the parts. In the East a priest certainly does the parts of a deacon if none is present, but he doesn’t act like a deacon, like stand where the deacon stands or carry some functions in a way a deacon only does. Most definitely he will never vest as a deacon does.

Properly speaking you are correct CONSTANTINE although in the Ukrainian Catholic Church priest will often vest and serve as deacons…as far as I’m concerned it is one of the worst Latinizations.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Properly speaking you are correct CONSTANTINE although in the Ukrainian Catholic Church priest will often vest and serve as deacons…as far as I’m concerned it is one of the worst Latinizations.

That has never happened in my experience. I have served in a Patriarchal Divine Liturgy with His Beatitude Sviatoslav last year and we have at least 10 UGCC priests and no deacons. No one vested as a deacon. It would have been awesome if there was a deacon for the Liturgy. Also quite odd too, in the Orthodox Church, bishops travel with their archdeacons. Not only to serve in the Liturgy but I guess to carry the bags as well

I also doubt His Beatitude will tolerate that, he’s pretty orthodox when it comes to Eastern traditions.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m wondering more about the vesting than doing the parts. In the East a priest certainly does the parts of a deacon if none is present, but he doesn’t act like a deacon, like stand where the deacon stands or carry some functions in a way a deacon only does. Most definitely he will never vest as a deacon does.

In the OF a priest will not ordinarily vest as a deacon. In the EF it will happen quite often. In the other (non-Roman) EFs, it occurs quite often as well. In the other OFs, I don’t know.

Never has it happened that a bishop vests as a deacon or subdeacon to assist another celebrant at Mass, AFAIK. Now, it is the ancient tradition in the West that a bishop wears the dalmatic (and the tunicle in the EF) to show his fullness of orders. It is very attractive visually. Also, in ecumenical councils the cardinals will wear a cope, chasuble or mitre during the solemn public sessions to show their respective order as cardinal bishop, priest or deacon, even though they are all, or almost all, bishops.

And the use of cardinal deacons at several of the Pope’s more solemn Masses and other liturgies throughout the year has been the practice for a long time. They wear the dalmatic, as in the photo above. I really love when they use cardinal deacons: it is striking in a good way to see a mitre on top of a dalmatic.

I think this is mainly something where we can say it’s fine that the West and East differ. I understand the arguments on both sides and I think they are generally good, but they are not mutually exclusive. I love the mysticism of a well-celebrated Eastern liturgy, but I love the glory of a well-celebrated Western liturgy. Not that mysticism and glory are opposites. =p

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the OF a priest will not ordinarily vest as a deacon. In the EF it will happen quite often. In the other (non-Roman) EFs, it occurs quite often as well. In the other OFs, I don’t know.

Never has it happened that a bishop vests as a deacon or subdeacon to assist another celebrant at Mass, AFAIK. Now, it is the ancient tradition in the West that a bishop wears the dalmatic (and the tunicle in the EF) to show his fullness of orders. It is very attractive visually. Also, in ecumenical councils the cardinals will wear a cope, chasuble or mitre during the solemn public sessions to show their respective order as cardinal bishop, priest or deacon, even though they are all, or almost all, bishops.

And the use of cardinal deacons at several of the Pope’s more solemn Masses and other liturgies throughout the year has been the practice for a long time. They wear the dalmatic, as in the photo above. I really love when they use cardinal deacons: it is striking in a good way to see a mitre on top of a dalmatic.

I think this is mainly something where we can say it’s fine that the West and East differ. I understand the arguments on both sides and I think they are generally good, but they are not mutually exclusive. I love the mysticism of a well-celebrated Eastern liturgy, but I love the glory of a well-celebrated Western liturgy. Not that mysticism and glory are opposites. =p

I may be wrong, but I thought that a bishop vested as a deacon when Pope Benedict celebrated in the EF. You would know more about this, I could be wrong. I’m not getting any younger and my memory isn’t as good.

I’m just wondering what the reasoning behind it is.

 

[jwinch2]

I may be wrong, but I thought that a bishop vested as a deacon when Pope Benedict celebrated in the EF. You would know more about this, I could be wrong. I’m not getting any younger and my memory isn’t as good.

I’m just wondering what the reasoning behind it is.

I was of the understanding that Pope Benedict did not publicly celebrate the EF of the Mass during his pontificate. Am I wrong on that?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was of the understanding that Pope Benedict did not publicly celebrate the EF of the Mass during his pontificate. Am I wrong on that?

I have to dig out that photo. I think it was on my facebook feed from one of my trad friends.

 

[jwinch2]

I have to dig out that photo. I think it was on my facebook feed from one of my trad friends.

Cool. I look forward to seeing it.

 

[Vico]

I’m wondering how this development happened in the Latin Rite where bishops or priests will serve as Deacons, or even anything but bishops and priests. I think this happens in the Extraordinary Form more as there is little or no way for concelebration.

I’m wondering because in the Byzantine Rite (both Catholic and Orthodox), bishops and priests would never vest as anything but bishops and priests and will never serve in a Liturgy as anything but bishops and priest. If there is no deacon then they will say the prayers that are said by the deacon, but they will not do the actions of a deacon, like reading the prayers outside of the iconostas. They just remain where they usually are, at the table.

Anybody has information on how this came to be?

It was gradual from the second century (each consecrating one host but a common chalice) but by the eighth century Latin concelebration was only used on the great feasts of Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday (Pentecost), and St. Peter.St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q82, Article 2. Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?:

Objection 1. It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above (Question 67, Article 6), that several cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing. Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.

Objection 2. Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments. Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host.

Objection 3. Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is “the sacrament of unity.” But multitude seems to be opposed to unity. Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host.

On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), when a priest is ordained he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should be directed to the same instant of the consecration.

Reply to Objection 1. We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there is no parallel.

Reply to Objection 2. If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ’s stead; and since many are “one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28); consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.

Reply to Objection 3. The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being “one in Christ.”

 

[jwinch2]

Not to side track us too much here, but the quotes from Aquinas above speaking about concelebration reminded me of something I read recently. Specifically, in a book on Monastic Spirituality, which is pretty traditional by and large, it stated that the practice of concelebration of the Eucharist has actually been good for monastic houses such as the Benedictines in that it allows them to attend Mass as an entire community rather than having all of the priests celebrating private Masses, and the rest of the community who are not priests celebrating one Mass with the Abbot or Prior.

I hadn’t considered that before and to me, it is an example of how concelebration has had a good result.

 

[TimothyH]

Every bishop and priest is also a deacon. Every bishop and priest became a deacon first, before they became a priest.

That’s why there is no such thing as a Mass without a deacon. Every priest is a deacon.

As an example, the deacon is the proclaimer of the Gospel in the Church. When a priest steps to the ambo to proclaim the Gospel, he is exercising the ministry he recieved when he became a deacon. When a priest proclaims the Gospel, he is fulfilling his role as a deacon.

I have no idea about the mechanics of the Mass with regards to vesting and performing the actions of a deacon, but the priest or bishop does many things daily which are ordinary to his role as a deacon in the Church. Many priests will tell you that they spend most of their time doing things specific to the diaconate as opposed to things specific to the priesthood.

-Tim-