Clergy roles in the Latin Rite

[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-

I meant this to be the start of another thread. I don’t know why I posted it here.

-Tim-

 

[ConstantineTG]

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-

In the Eastern Rites we still call those given Minor Orders as ordained.

 

[Brendan]

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

Sorry, my comment was badly phrased.

 

[malphono]

In the Eastern Rites we still call those given Minor Orders as ordained.

Yes, that is, of course, true, but for the purpose of this thread, it might be worth while to clarify that ordination to Minor Orders is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[MarkThompson]

Sorry, my comment was badly phrased.

Oh, good to know. Thought I might have been missing something obvious.

 

[Spirithound]

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 have only noticed this in the EF, specifically for the High Mass. That is the only Roman liturgy that actually requires a deacon and subdeacon to be present. Couple this with the restriction on concelebration, and the general lack of simple deacons from Trent to Vatican II, and you’ve got a recipe for priests acting and vesting as deacons.
…
Now, having written that lovely paragraph, I realize that it doesn’t have to be like that. I think that I have given a couple factors in the thinking of the liturgists who did as they did, but I recognize that they could have chosen differently, as we see now in the OF of the Roman Rite, with priests vested as priests but acting as deacons (proclaiming the Gospel). Perhaps the “reason” behind it is that the liturgy never got a full overhaul, so nobody ever thought to change it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I would also like to point out that even in the OF, a priest will occasionally vest as and act as a deacon at Mass. I have seen it a few times, mostly in situations in which the pastor of a parish wanted to have two deacons so as to have a “Solemn” OF Mass. However, this parish has only one deacon, and so the parochial vicar assisted as the second deacon. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would also like to point out that even in the OF, a priest will occasionally vest as and act as a deacon at Mass. I have seen it a few times, mostly in situations in which the pastor of a parish wanted to have two deacons so as to have a “Solemn” OF Mass. However, this parish has only one deacon, and so the parochial vicar assisted as the second deacon. There is nothing wrong with this.

So even with the possibility of concelebration in the OF, this is probably just an offshoot of the tradition borne out of the EF that a priest vests as a deacon. I’m guessing.

 

[YoungTradCath]

So even with the possibility of concelebration in the OF, this is probably just an offshoot of the tradition borne out of the EF that a priest vests as a deacon. I’m guessing.

I suppose in principle in the OF, a priest can be assisted by 800 deacons and it wouldn’t be against the rubrics. It also bears mentioning that no priest can be forced to concelebrate, even by his bishop.

But I suppose that yes, it is, practically speaking, probably something influenced heavily by the EF. There is just something very stately, triumphant and almost royal about seeing two dressed-alike deacons assisting a single priest. Especially when the sacred ministers are facing the apse and the deacons are kneeling on the steps leading up to the altar during the Canon, it is a magnificent sight.

 

[Alfonsus]

All apostolic traditions are in one agreement: that a higher order can do the function of the lower one. It is accumulative. Thus when a deacon is not present, a priest can take his role.

The only difference is HOW to do it.
In the east, a priest will still vest as a priest but do the deacon or subdeacon role. The merit of this approach is that it underlines the accumulation of functions. Everyone can see that a priest still do the office of deacon/subdeacon.

In the west, there is tradition to underline the accumulation by vesting as a lower one. Perhaps it is about aesthetic, it does pleasing in the eyes. But it does come with lots of exceptions: for instance, why not a priest change to deacon attire when proclaiming gospel? If giving baptism and blessings can be done by deacon, why not he have the option to vest as deacon and not priest from time to time?

As far as I know, the approach in ordinary form is more Eastern. Priest/deacon/bishop must vest according to their rank although in absence of other minister may perform their function.

Ceremonial of Bishops 22: “Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.”

“… A reader or acolyte, even one not formally instituted, will perform the subdeacon’s functions. In the celebration of Mass all ministers should do all and only those parts that belong to them on the basis of the order they have received. The ordained ministers at mass are therefore to take part either by concelebrating if they are priests or by exercising their proper ministries if they are deacons…It is altogether out of place for a priest vested as a deacon to exercise the deacon’s function…”
SC Divine Worship, Presentation Cum, die 1 Ianuarii of the changes introduced into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 23 Dec. 1972; Notitiae 9 (1973) 34-38
[Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, 206]

But perhaps in the end, it is more about taste?
It is just like the conical chasuble front is trimmed in the East, while it is the left and right portion in the West…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Note though that the priest in the Divine Liturgy will not do everything the deacon does. As I have mentioned above, for one thing a second priest will never say the deacon’s prayers from where the deacon will say the prayers in the Litanies, which is outside the Royal Doors. And at least in my experience, the bishop or priest will not have anyone else elevate the diskos and chalice with the Body and Blood of our Lord if there is no deacon. But if there is a deacon, it is ordinarily his role to do the elevation. Also certain prayers and exclamations by the deacon are omitted. So you cannot really say the priest is taking the role of the deacon, but only filling in the parts that cannot be omitted, such as the Litanies.