Can priests serve as Deacons

[PianomanD]

I was told by one of my parish priests, “Once a deacon, always a deacon,” which makes perfect sense. I know that priests can function as a deacon during Mass whilst concelebrating (except maybe at consecration if he chooses to exercise his priestly power). My question is if he is not going to concelebrate, can he still function as a plain deacon? aka Can he wear the deacon’s vestments (stole and the dalmatic)? Can he kneel during the consecration? I’m just asking out of curiosity.

 

[Fauken]

I don’t see why he couldn’t serve as a Deacon and wear their vestments. At the EF parish I go to, I’ve seen the priests even serve as subdeacons.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t see why he couldn’t serve as a Deacon and wear their vestments. At the EF parish I go to, I’ve seen the priests even serve as subdeacons.

This abuse was supposed to have been stamped out years ago!

A priest may serve the liturgical functions of a deacon or subdeacon (as long as he’s not usurping the role of a present deacon or layman), such as in the EF, or reading the Gospel at Most Masses and Divine Liturgies. He should not, though, be vesting as a “lower” order of clergy.

For a priest to read the Gospel when a deacon is present is an abuse, as is a priest or deacon taking certain prayers (such as the intentions in an RC Mass) when a layman capable of doing so is present.

hawk

 

[semper_catholicus]

I don’t know about the OF, but in the EF, priests serve as deacons all the time.

 

[Fauken]

Ah, I see! I am corrected! Are you sure though that applies to the 1962 liturgy?

For a priest to read the Gospel when a deacon is present is an abuse, as is a priest or deacon taking certain prayers (such as the intentions in an RC Mass) when a layman capable of doing so is present.

Well, in this particular case, the priest (acting as subdeacon) only read the epistle. The deacon (who was a deacon) read the gospel and performed all the other functions the deacon is supposed to do. At this Mass there was a priest, a deacon, and a subdeacon. So I’m a bit confused by this comment. I probably should have mentioned both priests are present when this happens, not that they usurp the role of subdeacon during the liturgy while performing their roles as the priest during Mass.

 

[TheOldColonel]

If not concelebrating, a priest should wear a cassock and surplice and attend “en choir.” This is the only proper option within the Roman Rite.

 

[Kaliaa]

A Deacon, when present, would normally read the intentions (universal prayer, “prayers of the faithful”) after an introductory by the priest. It is NOT an abuse for the Deacon to do so.

USCCB - Universal Prayer

 

[dochawk]

Well, in this particular case, the priest (acting as subdeacon) only read the epistle. The deacon (who was a deacon) read the gospel and performed all the other functions the deacon is supposed to do. At this Mass there was a priest, a deacon, and a subdeacon.

I mean that if an actual deacon, not a priest serving as a deacon, is present, then it is an abuse for the priest to usurp the diaconal role. So you can’t have a priest take the diaconal role if there is a deacon (not ordained to the presbyterate) present.

A Deacon, when present, would normally read the intentions (universal prayer, “prayers of the faithful”) after an introductory by the priest. It is NOT an abuse for the Deacon to do so.

I may have parts of this backwards; there are parts not to be taken by the priest if an available layman is present.
I only attend the latin rite a few ties a year: KofC, funerals, and when visiting family.

hawk

 

[PianomanD]

Thank you all so much for your responses. I mainly asked this for purposes of the Ordinary Form. What I’m understanding is that Priests should only fulfill the role of a Deacon or a Layperson whenever said Deacon/Layperson is not present at the Mass. When only assisting and not celebrating/concelebrating, the Priest should never vest as a Deacon, but, rather, he should wear a cassock and surplice. Is this correct in terms of the Ordinary Form?

 

[Wendy1989]

I believe this is correct. I went to our Diocese Chrism Mass and there were no Deacons on the sanctuary. The priests (acting as Masters of Ceremony) were wearing cassocks & surplice and at the appropriate time, they added a stole. I’ve not been to a Mass when a Deacon (transitional or permanent) wasn’t present.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you all so much for your responses. I mainly asked this for purposes of the Ordinary Form. What I’m understanding is that Priests should only fulfill the role of a Deacon or a Layperson whenever said Deacon/Layperson is not present at the Mass. When only assisting and not celebrating/concelebrating, the Priest should never vest as a Deacon, but, rather, he should wear a cassock and surplice. Is this correct in terms of the Ordinary Form?

Yes.

One subtle point, though. What people sometimes think of as being roles for the laity are not really that.

The readings belong to the instituted Lector. While instituted Lectors are laymen, that function is not proper to non-instituted laypersons. If there is no instituted Lector present, then it’s a perfectly sound option for a priest do do the readings. The same applies to the petitions. They are a diaconal function, not a lay function.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I may have parts of this backwards; there are parts not to be taken by the priest if an available layman is present.
…

hawk

That depends.

The readings are to be done by an instituted Lector. Only in the absence of an instituted Lector a layperson can do the readings. If there’s no instituted Lector, then it’s perfectly sound for a cleric to do the readings.

Same with the petitions. They are proper to the deacon. In the absence of a deacon, a priest can do the petitions. He may appoint a layperson, but is never required to do so.

 

[PianomanD]

Yes, I forgot about instituted acolytes and lectors. That’s what I meant by
laymen.