Clergy roles in the Latin Rite

[ConstantineTG]

Why is it in the Latin Rite, bishops and priests would vest as priests and deacons to fulfill that “role” in Mass? Granted I have been RC for much of my life, I’ve never seen this before and never realized it until today. Especially in the EF.

I just realized this because in the Byzantine Rite, a priest would never vest as a deacon. A bishop or priest can take the parts of a deacon during Liturgy if the deacon is not present, but they would never vest as a deacon. They wouldn’t even stand where the deacon stands (outside the iconostasis in front of the Royal Doors) but instead say his parts where they are (by the altar).

 

[ProVobis]

Why is it in the Latin Rite, bishops and priests would vest as priests and deacons to fulfill that “role” in Mass? Granted I have been RC for much of my life, I’ve never seen this before and never realized it until today. Especially in the EF.

Good question. But how would the Solemn High Mass be said without someone filling in the deacon or subdeacon “role” in the EF? There are no more actual subdeacons, for one thing.

 

[corsair]

Yes, there are subdeacons within all traditional seminaries. It is one of the minor orders. All priests, in those seminaries, are ordained subdeacons and deacons enroute to becoming priests. Hence they can serve those positions. I believe that the subdeacon role can be filled with someone who is not ordained but I’m not sure of the requirements. I believe any FSSP priest could tell you though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good question. But how would the Solemn High Mass be said without someone filling in the deacon or subdeacon “role” in the EF? There are no more actual subdeacons, for one thing.

How that does work? Can’t a priest vested as a priest just do the actions needed?

 

[Chatter163]

This was the Church’s practice for centuries, and still is in EF communities. A priest is still a deacon, just as a deacon is still a subdeacon. They have not lost these aspects of ordination. This is why one sees bishops who still wear dalmatics under their chasubles, even occasionally in the OF. They possess the fulness of orders.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[YoungTradCath]

First, there are still subdeacons. Every [edited] [EF] priest is ordained a subdeacon before he is ordained a deacon. The clerical state isn’t conferred until reception of the diaconate, but the subdiaconate is still conferred as well. And so are all the minor orders.

How that does work? Can’t a priest vested as a priest just do the actions needed?

No. To act as a deacon, one must be vested as a deacon. The same goes for subdeacons. I suppose this is just part of the Latin tradition.

As Br. JR will tell you, a priest doesn’t cease being a deacon once he’s ordained a priest. He just attains more duties and abilities. So a priest is a priest and a deacon. Perhaps it might even be–and I’m just proposing this, no EC bashing–insulting to the dignity of the diaconate/subdiaconate for a priest to wear a dalmatic/tunicle? I don’t know.

You even see Cardinals wearing dalmatics. They are the Cardinal deacons/Papal Assistants at Papal Masses. They are the ones wearing dalmatics and mitres, an admittedly striking combination.

At ceremonies of Ecumenical Councils the custom is for Cardinal Bishops to wear cope and mitre, Cardinal Priests to wear chasuble and mitre, and Cardinal Deacons to wear dalmatic and mitre. I believe all non-Cardinal bishops wear the dalmatic and mitre as well.

I think this is just one of those things.

---

It is required for a bishop to wear pontifical tunicle, then pontifical dalmatic, then chasuble, when celebrating the EF Solemnly.

It is also permitted for a bishop to wear a bishop to wear pontifical dalmatic under the chasuble when celebrating the OF “Solemnly,” even though rubrically, Solemn OF Mass doesn’t exist. Pope Benedict wears the pontifical dalmatic basically for every public Papal Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, there are subdeacons within all traditional seminaries. It is one of the minor orders. All priests, in those seminaries, are ordained subdeacons and deacons enroute to becoming priests. Hence they can serve those positions. I believe that the subdeacon role can be filled with someone who is not ordained but I’m not sure of the requirements. I believe any FSSP priest could tell you though.

I was not aware of this. So the last two Popes have in effect restored (per the Council of Trent) the subdiaconate state?

 

[ConstantineTG]

First, there are still subdeacons. Every traddie priest is ordained a subdeacon before he is ordained a deacon. The clerical state isn’t conferred until reception of the diaconate, but the subdiaconate is still conferred as well. And so are all the minor orders.

No. To act as a deacon, one must be vested as a deacon. The same goes for subdeacons. I suppose this is just part of the Latin tradition.

As Br. JR will tell you, a priest doesn’t cease being a deacon once he’s ordained a priest. He just attains more duties and abilities. So a priest is a priest and a deacon. Perhaps it might even be–and I’m just proposing this, no EC bashing–insulting to the dignity of the diaconate/subdiaconate for a priest to wear a dalmatic/tunicle? I don’t know.

You even see Cardinals wearing dalmatics. They are the Cardinal deacons/Papal Assistants at Papal Masses. They are the ones wearing dalmatics and mitres, an admittedly striking combination.

At ceremonies of Ecumenical Councils the custom is for Cardinal Bishops to wear cope and mitre, Cardinal Priests to wear chasuble and mitre, and Cardinal Deacons to wear dalmatic and mitre. I believe all non-Cardinal bishops wear the dalmatic and mitre as well.

I think this is just one of those things.

---

It is required for a bishop to wear pontifical tunicle, then pontifical dalmatic, then chasuble, when celebrating the EF Solemnly.

It is also permitted for a bishop to wear a bishop to wear pontifical dalmatic under the chasuble when celebrating the OF “Solemnly,” even though rubrically, Solemn OF Mass doesn’t exist. Pope Benedict wears the pontifical dalmatic basically for every public Papal Mass.

Maybe just because I learned all these as an Eastern Catholic that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Its not about insulting to one of the orders for one to vest if one is not. If one is a priest then one should be identified as a priest. To vest otherwise will confuse the laity. There are many things a Deacon does in the Divine Liturgy, such as incensing, leading the Litanies, etc. Someone will have to take those parts, yet even if there is more then one priest, no one vests as a Deacon and does the actions of a Deacon. The priests remain where they are saying the parts of the Deacon. The only time someone goes through the motions of a Deacon is when incensing, for the obvious reason that you have to move about when incensing.

You may be right though about traditions, that in the Latin Rite that the roles are also tied to those according to vesting. Or perhaps the fact that in the EF, concelebrating is not normally done? Thus any extra priests would have to vest not as a priest. Maybe that is the answer there?

 

[ProVobis]

You may be right though about traditions, that in the Latin Rite that the roles are also tied to those according to vesting. Or perhaps the fact that in the EF, concelebrating is not normally done? Thus any extra priests would have to vest not as a priest. Maybe that is the answer there?

No concelebrating at an EF is my understanding too. Aside from the Solemn Mass, other parish priests can help out with communion distribution, which is also a function of a deacon. These clerics generally wear a stole on top of their cassock and surpluses.

 

[MarkThompson]

How that does work? Can’t a priest vested as a priest just do the actions needed?

No. To act as a deacon, one must be vested as a deacon.

Of course a priest could fulfill the liturgical role of the deacon while vested as a priest – or in prison garb, a military uniform, a hazmat suit, or anything else. It is simply that the rubrics in our tradition provide otherwise. My guess would be that this is primarily because it allows any church or chapel to be fully prepared for any solemn Mass by having just one chasuble, one dalmatic, and one tunicle in each color, instead of requiring the availability of up to three chasubles in each color, in addition to the dalmatics and tunicles, to allow for the possibility of priests taking the place of actual deacons and subdeacons.

 

[Brendan]

Its not about insulting to one of the orders for one to vest if one is not. If one is a priest then one should be identified as a priest. To vest otherwise will confuse the laity.

That would be more of a call to educate the laity than anything else. Would they think that a priest is not longer a member of the Diaconate?

 

[Brendan]

Of course a priest could fulfill the liturgical role of the deacon while vested as a priest .

I would agree, especially since when a priest proclaims the Gospel, he does so as a Deacon. But he is not required under any rubric to change vestments.

But I do find symbolic value in the EF Solemn High Mass’ rubrics on the subject. It is an explicit recognition of various degrees of Holy Orders as an unifed extention of the same Sacrament.

The priest does not cease to be a Deacon when he recieves Sacredotals Orders, but can, and often does, retain Deaconal faculties.

 

[MarkThompson]

The priest does not cease to be a Deacon when he recieves Sacredotals Orders, but can, and often does, retain Deaconal faculties.

When, do you think, would a priest not retain diaconal faculties?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course a priest could fulfill the liturgical role of the deacon while vested as a priest – or in prison garb, a military uniform, a hazmat suit, or anything else. It is simply that the rubrics in our tradition provide otherwise. My guess would be that this is primarily because it allows any church or chapel to be fully prepared for any solemn Mass by having just one chasuble, one dalmatic, and one tunicle in each color, instead of requiring the availability of up to three chasubles in each color, in addition to the dalmatics and tunicles, to allow for the possibility of priests taking the place of actual deacons and subdeacons.

Ah, the “practicality is the source of all traditions” reason. Yes, a lot of people think there are deep reasons why our Church does things in certain ways, but in reality when it was first conceived there was a practical reason to do it. Then as years go by it became part of the ceremony.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would agree, especially since when a priest proclaims the Gospel, he does so as a Deacon. But he is not required under any rubric to change vestments.

But I do find symbolic value in the EF Solemn High Mass’ rubrics on the subject. It is an explicit recognition of various degrees of Holy Orders as an unifed extention of the same Sacrament.

The priest does not cease to be a Deacon when he recieves Sacredotals Orders, but can, and often does, retain Deaconal faculties.

But it is the same way in the Divine Liturgy, the roles of the deacons and priests are clearly defined in the texts. But in the event of more than one priest, every priest still acts as a priest without having to vest as a deacon. They can do the incensing and read the prayers of the deacon without “pretending” to be a deacon.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That would be more of a call to educate the laity than anything else. Would they think that a priest is not longer a member of the Diaconate?

In a sense, yes. A priest is more than a deacon. For one thing he can confer Sacraments.

 

[Chatter163]

Maybe just because I learned all these as an Eastern Catholic that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

Agreed.

I was not aware of this. So the last two Popes have in effect restored (per the Council of Trent) the subdiaconate state?

I would not use the word restored. The pontiffs have permitted the formation process of traditional priestly orders to include the subdiaconate, as that ancient order was part of priestly formation until shortly after Vatican II. That is certainly not a restoration, which would be more of an across-the-board thing for all parts of the church. I am not sure what you mean by referring to the Council of Trent, as the subdiaconate goes back to at least the third century. Also note, that unlike past ages, canonically speaking, subdeacons are not classified as clergy; that commences with the diaconate.
ConstantineTG;9213168:

Or perhaps the fact that in the EF, concelebrating is not normally done? Thus any extra priests would have to vest not as a priest. Maybe that is the answer there?

The problem here is that you are looking at the issue from the perspective of the modern OF rite, which includes concelebration, rather than through a historical one. Concelebration–the way that we know and see it done today, not the very limited model formerly done at ordination Masses–is a very recent (1960s) innovation. Thus, one cannot really look at a recent practice and seek an answer to a question that involves a rite estalished much, much earlier, before anyone had the modern perspective.

 

[MarkThompson]

The problem here is that you are looking at the issue from the perspective of the modern OF rite, which includes concelebration, rather than through a historical one. Concelebration–the way that we know and see it done today, not the very limited model formerly done at ordination Masses–is a very recent (1960s) innovation. Thus, one cannot really look at a recent practice and seek an answer to a question that involves a rite estalished much, much earlier, before anyone had the modern perspective.

As I have noted elsewhere, it is more of a restoration than an innovation. You may well be right in your overall point, however, that the persistence of concelebration in the Eastern rites versus its near-elimination in the West has affected issues like differences in vestment practice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem here is that you are looking at the issue from the perspective of the modern OF rite, which includes concelebration, rather than through a historical one. Concelebration–the way that we know and see it done today, not the very limited model formerly done at ordination Masses–is a very recent (1960s) innovation. Thus, one cannot really look at a recent practice and seek an answer to a question that involves a rite estalished much, much earlier, before anyone had the modern perspective.

Concelebration is historical from the Eastern perspective. It is not a modern innovation.

 

[TimothyH]

Recent threads mention the ordination of subdeacons. I’m not sure this is a correct use of the term ordianation. I believe it is not but want to be sure.

Does a subdeacon undergo the sacrament of holy orders?

CCC 1538: Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” (sacra potestas)5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church.

My understanding is that the word ordination has a specific meaining in the Church which it does not have in the secular or non-Catholic Christian world; that the word ordo or order simply means a group, especially with regards to a civil authority, but an order can be the the Order of Bishops, Order of the Nights of Malta or even the Order of the Moose Lodge. To be ordained in the common use of the term is to be initiated into the group in some manner. My father was ordained into the Order of the Freemansons by a certain ritual they use, but such a use of the word ordained is not the same as the Latin Church’s use of the word ordained.

So I ask in all sincerity again… is a subdeacon ordained in the sense that the word ordained is used in Catholicism? Has the subdeacon undergone the sacrament of holy orders? My understanding is that there are only three sacramental or “Holy” orders, the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, and the ordo diaconorum.

Is a subdeacon a member of the ordo diacanorum or are they really just insititued?

Any information would be appreciated.

-Tim-